Guidelines

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

The U.S. National Lipid Association has issued a new scientific statement on the management of patients with statin intolerance, which recommends different strategies to help patients stay on statin medications, and also suggests alternatives that can be used in patients who really cannot tolerate statin drugs.

The statement was published online in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.  

It notes that, although statins are generally well tolerated, statin intolerance is reported in 5%-30% of patients and contributes to reduced statin adherence and persistence, as well as higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

The statement acknowledges the importance of identifying modifiable risk factors for statin intolerance and recognizes the possibility of a “nocebo” effect, basically the patient expectation of harm resulting in perceived side effects.

To identify a tolerable statin regimen, it recommends that clinicians consider using several different strategies (different statin, dose, and/or dosing frequency), and to classify a patient as having statin intolerance, a minimum of two statins should have been attempted, including at least one at the lowest-approved daily dosage.

The statement says that nonstatin therapy may be required for patients who cannot reach therapeutic objectives with lifestyle and maximal tolerated statin therapy, and in these cases, therapies with outcomes data from randomized trials showing reduced cardiovascular events are favored.

In high and very high-risk patients who are statin intolerant, clinicians should consider initiating nonstatin therapy while additional attempts are made to identify a tolerable statin in order to limit the time of exposure to elevated levels of atherogenic lipoproteins, it suggests.

“There is strong evidence that statins reduce risk of cardiovascular events particularly in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but recent research shows that only about half of patients with ASCVD are on a statin,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, coauthor of the statement and current president of the National Lipid Association, said in an interview.

“There is an urgent problem with underutilization of statins and undertreatment of ASCVD. And we know that perceived side effects associated with statins are a common reason for discontinuation of these drugs and the consequent failure to manage ASCVD adequately,” he said.  

Dr. Maki noted that the NLA’s first message is that, when experiencing symptoms taking statins, a large majority of patients can still tolerate a statin. “They can try a different agent or a different dose. But for those who still can’t tolerate a statin, we then recommend nonstatin therapies and we favor those therapies with evidence from randomized trials.”

He pointed out that many patients who believe they are experiencing side effects from taking statins still experience the same effects on a placebo, a condition known as the nocebo effect.

“Several studies have shown that the nocebo effect is very common and accounts for more than half of perceived statin side effects. It is therefore estimated that many of the complaints of statin intolerance are probably not directly related to the pharmacodynamic actions of the drugs,” Dr. Maki said.

One recent study on the nocebo effect, the SAMSON study, suggested that 90% of symptoms attributed to statins were elicited by placebo tablets too.

But Dr. Maki added that it can be a losing battle for the clinician if patients think their symptoms are related to taking a statin.

“We suggest that clinicians inform patients that most people can tolerate a statin – maybe with a different agent or an alternative dose – and it is really important to lower LDL cholesterol as that will lower the risk of MI and stroke, so we need to find a regimen that works for each individual,” he said. “Most people can find a regimen that works. If this means taking a lower dose of a statin, they can take some additional therapy as well. This is a better situation than stopping taking statins altogether and allowing ASCVD to progress.”

Dr. Maki stressed that statins should still be the first choice as they are effective, taken orally, and inexpensive.

“Other medications do not have all these advantages. For example, PCSK9 inhibitors are very effective but they are expensive and injectable,” he noted. “And while ezetimibe [Zetia] is now generic so inexpensive, it has a more modest effect on LDL-lowering compared to statins, so by itself it is not normally enough for most patients to get to their target LDL, but it is an option for use in combination with a statin.”

He added that the NLA message is to do everything possible to keep patients on a statin, especially patients with preexisting ASCVD.

“We would like these patients to be on high-intensity statins. If they really can’t tolerate this, then they could be on a low-intensity statin plus an additional agent.”

Commenting on the NLA statement, SAMSON study coauthor James Howard, MB BChir, PhD, Imperial College London, said he had reservations about some of the recommendations.

“Whilst I think it is great news that the existence and importance of the nocebo effect is increasingly recognized in international guidelines and statements, I think we need to be very careful about recommending reduced doses and frequencies of statins,” Dr. Howard said.

“Studies such as SAMSON and StatinWISE indicate the vast majority of side effects reported by patients taking statins are not caused by the statin molecule, but instead are caused by either the nocebo effect, or ever-present background symptoms that are wrongly attributed to the statins,” he commented. “Therefore, to recommend that the correct approach in a patient with a history of MI suffering symptoms on 80 mg of atorvastatin is to reduce the dose or try alternate daily dosing. This reinforces the view that these drugs are side-effect prone and need to be carefully titrated.”

Dr. Howard suggested that patients should be educated on the possibility of the nocebo effect or background symptoms and encouraged to retrial statins at the same dose. “If that doesn’t work, then formal recording with a symptom diary might help patients recognize background symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Howard noted that, if symptoms still persist, an “n-of-1” trial could be conducted, in which the patient rotates between multiple periods of taking a statin and a placebo, but he acknowledged that this is expensive and time consuming. 

Also commenting, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said he thought the NLA statement was “reasonable and thoughtful.”

“Regardless of whether the symptoms are due to the nocebo effect or not, some patients will just not take a statin no matter how hard you try to convince them to persevere, so we do need alternatives,” Dr. Nissen said.

He noted that current alternatives would include the PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe, but a future candidate could be the oral bempedoic acid (Nexletol), which is currently being evaluated in a large outcomes trial (CLEAR Outcomes).

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

The U.S. National Lipid Association has issued a new scientific statement on the management of patients with statin intolerance, which recommends different strategies to help patients stay on statin medications, and also suggests alternatives that can be used in patients who really cannot tolerate statin drugs.

The statement was published online in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.  

It notes that, although statins are generally well tolerated, statin intolerance is reported in 5%-30% of patients and contributes to reduced statin adherence and persistence, as well as higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

The statement acknowledges the importance of identifying modifiable risk factors for statin intolerance and recognizes the possibility of a “nocebo” effect, basically the patient expectation of harm resulting in perceived side effects.

To identify a tolerable statin regimen, it recommends that clinicians consider using several different strategies (different statin, dose, and/or dosing frequency), and to classify a patient as having statin intolerance, a minimum of two statins should have been attempted, including at least one at the lowest-approved daily dosage.

The statement says that nonstatin therapy may be required for patients who cannot reach therapeutic objectives with lifestyle and maximal tolerated statin therapy, and in these cases, therapies with outcomes data from randomized trials showing reduced cardiovascular events are favored.

In high and very high-risk patients who are statin intolerant, clinicians should consider initiating nonstatin therapy while additional attempts are made to identify a tolerable statin in order to limit the time of exposure to elevated levels of atherogenic lipoproteins, it suggests.

“There is strong evidence that statins reduce risk of cardiovascular events particularly in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but recent research shows that only about half of patients with ASCVD are on a statin,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, coauthor of the statement and current president of the National Lipid Association, said in an interview.

“There is an urgent problem with underutilization of statins and undertreatment of ASCVD. And we know that perceived side effects associated with statins are a common reason for discontinuation of these drugs and the consequent failure to manage ASCVD adequately,” he said.  

Dr. Maki noted that the NLA’s first message is that, when experiencing symptoms taking statins, a large majority of patients can still tolerate a statin. “They can try a different agent or a different dose. But for those who still can’t tolerate a statin, we then recommend nonstatin therapies and we favor those therapies with evidence from randomized trials.”

He pointed out that many patients who believe they are experiencing side effects from taking statins still experience the same effects on a placebo, a condition known as the nocebo effect.

“Several studies have shown that the nocebo effect is very common and accounts for more than half of perceived statin side effects. It is therefore estimated that many of the complaints of statin intolerance are probably not directly related to the pharmacodynamic actions of the drugs,” Dr. Maki said.

One recent study on the nocebo effect, the SAMSON study, suggested that 90% of symptoms attributed to statins were elicited by placebo tablets too.

But Dr. Maki added that it can be a losing battle for the clinician if patients think their symptoms are related to taking a statin.

“We suggest that clinicians inform patients that most people can tolerate a statin – maybe with a different agent or an alternative dose – and it is really important to lower LDL cholesterol as that will lower the risk of MI and stroke, so we need to find a regimen that works for each individual,” he said. “Most people can find a regimen that works. If this means taking a lower dose of a statin, they can take some additional therapy as well. This is a better situation than stopping taking statins altogether and allowing ASCVD to progress.”

Dr. Maki stressed that statins should still be the first choice as they are effective, taken orally, and inexpensive.

“Other medications do not have all these advantages. For example, PCSK9 inhibitors are very effective but they are expensive and injectable,” he noted. “And while ezetimibe [Zetia] is now generic so inexpensive, it has a more modest effect on LDL-lowering compared to statins, so by itself it is not normally enough for most patients to get to their target LDL, but it is an option for use in combination with a statin.”

He added that the NLA message is to do everything possible to keep patients on a statin, especially patients with preexisting ASCVD.

“We would like these patients to be on high-intensity statins. If they really can’t tolerate this, then they could be on a low-intensity statin plus an additional agent.”

Commenting on the NLA statement, SAMSON study coauthor James Howard, MB BChir, PhD, Imperial College London, said he had reservations about some of the recommendations.

“Whilst I think it is great news that the existence and importance of the nocebo effect is increasingly recognized in international guidelines and statements, I think we need to be very careful about recommending reduced doses and frequencies of statins,” Dr. Howard said.

“Studies such as SAMSON and StatinWISE indicate the vast majority of side effects reported by patients taking statins are not caused by the statin molecule, but instead are caused by either the nocebo effect, or ever-present background symptoms that are wrongly attributed to the statins,” he commented. “Therefore, to recommend that the correct approach in a patient with a history of MI suffering symptoms on 80 mg of atorvastatin is to reduce the dose or try alternate daily dosing. This reinforces the view that these drugs are side-effect prone and need to be carefully titrated.”

Dr. Howard suggested that patients should be educated on the possibility of the nocebo effect or background symptoms and encouraged to retrial statins at the same dose. “If that doesn’t work, then formal recording with a symptom diary might help patients recognize background symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Howard noted that, if symptoms still persist, an “n-of-1” trial could be conducted, in which the patient rotates between multiple periods of taking a statin and a placebo, but he acknowledged that this is expensive and time consuming. 

Also commenting, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said he thought the NLA statement was “reasonable and thoughtful.”

“Regardless of whether the symptoms are due to the nocebo effect or not, some patients will just not take a statin no matter how hard you try to convince them to persevere, so we do need alternatives,” Dr. Nissen said.

He noted that current alternatives would include the PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe, but a future candidate could be the oral bempedoic acid (Nexletol), which is currently being evaluated in a large outcomes trial (CLEAR Outcomes).

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

The U.S. National Lipid Association has issued a new scientific statement on the management of patients with statin intolerance, which recommends different strategies to help patients stay on statin medications, and also suggests alternatives that can be used in patients who really cannot tolerate statin drugs.

The statement was published online in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.  

It notes that, although statins are generally well tolerated, statin intolerance is reported in 5%-30% of patients and contributes to reduced statin adherence and persistence, as well as higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

The statement acknowledges the importance of identifying modifiable risk factors for statin intolerance and recognizes the possibility of a “nocebo” effect, basically the patient expectation of harm resulting in perceived side effects.

To identify a tolerable statin regimen, it recommends that clinicians consider using several different strategies (different statin, dose, and/or dosing frequency), and to classify a patient as having statin intolerance, a minimum of two statins should have been attempted, including at least one at the lowest-approved daily dosage.

The statement says that nonstatin therapy may be required for patients who cannot reach therapeutic objectives with lifestyle and maximal tolerated statin therapy, and in these cases, therapies with outcomes data from randomized trials showing reduced cardiovascular events are favored.

In high and very high-risk patients who are statin intolerant, clinicians should consider initiating nonstatin therapy while additional attempts are made to identify a tolerable statin in order to limit the time of exposure to elevated levels of atherogenic lipoproteins, it suggests.

“There is strong evidence that statins reduce risk of cardiovascular events particularly in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but recent research shows that only about half of patients with ASCVD are on a statin,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, coauthor of the statement and current president of the National Lipid Association, said in an interview.

“There is an urgent problem with underutilization of statins and undertreatment of ASCVD. And we know that perceived side effects associated with statins are a common reason for discontinuation of these drugs and the consequent failure to manage ASCVD adequately,” he said.  

Dr. Maki noted that the NLA’s first message is that, when experiencing symptoms taking statins, a large majority of patients can still tolerate a statin. “They can try a different agent or a different dose. But for those who still can’t tolerate a statin, we then recommend nonstatin therapies and we favor those therapies with evidence from randomized trials.”

He pointed out that many patients who believe they are experiencing side effects from taking statins still experience the same effects on a placebo, a condition known as the nocebo effect.

“Several studies have shown that the nocebo effect is very common and accounts for more than half of perceived statin side effects. It is therefore estimated that many of the complaints of statin intolerance are probably not directly related to the pharmacodynamic actions of the drugs,” Dr. Maki said.

One recent study on the nocebo effect, the SAMSON study, suggested that 90% of symptoms attributed to statins were elicited by placebo tablets too.

But Dr. Maki added that it can be a losing battle for the clinician if patients think their symptoms are related to taking a statin.

“We suggest that clinicians inform patients that most people can tolerate a statin – maybe with a different agent or an alternative dose – and it is really important to lower LDL cholesterol as that will lower the risk of MI and stroke, so we need to find a regimen that works for each individual,” he said. “Most people can find a regimen that works. If this means taking a lower dose of a statin, they can take some additional therapy as well. This is a better situation than stopping taking statins altogether and allowing ASCVD to progress.”

Dr. Maki stressed that statins should still be the first choice as they are effective, taken orally, and inexpensive.

“Other medications do not have all these advantages. For example, PCSK9 inhibitors are very effective but they are expensive and injectable,” he noted. “And while ezetimibe [Zetia] is now generic so inexpensive, it has a more modest effect on LDL-lowering compared to statins, so by itself it is not normally enough for most patients to get to their target LDL, but it is an option for use in combination with a statin.”

He added that the NLA message is to do everything possible to keep patients on a statin, especially patients with preexisting ASCVD.

“We would like these patients to be on high-intensity statins. If they really can’t tolerate this, then they could be on a low-intensity statin plus an additional agent.”

Commenting on the NLA statement, SAMSON study coauthor James Howard, MB BChir, PhD, Imperial College London, said he had reservations about some of the recommendations.

“Whilst I think it is great news that the existence and importance of the nocebo effect is increasingly recognized in international guidelines and statements, I think we need to be very careful about recommending reduced doses and frequencies of statins,” Dr. Howard said.

“Studies such as SAMSON and StatinWISE indicate the vast majority of side effects reported by patients taking statins are not caused by the statin molecule, but instead are caused by either the nocebo effect, or ever-present background symptoms that are wrongly attributed to the statins,” he commented. “Therefore, to recommend that the correct approach in a patient with a history of MI suffering symptoms on 80 mg of atorvastatin is to reduce the dose or try alternate daily dosing. This reinforces the view that these drugs are side-effect prone and need to be carefully titrated.”

Dr. Howard suggested that patients should be educated on the possibility of the nocebo effect or background symptoms and encouraged to retrial statins at the same dose. “If that doesn’t work, then formal recording with a symptom diary might help patients recognize background symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Howard noted that, if symptoms still persist, an “n-of-1” trial could be conducted, in which the patient rotates between multiple periods of taking a statin and a placebo, but he acknowledged that this is expensive and time consuming. 

Also commenting, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said he thought the NLA statement was “reasonable and thoughtful.”

“Regardless of whether the symptoms are due to the nocebo effect or not, some patients will just not take a statin no matter how hard you try to convince them to persevere, so we do need alternatives,” Dr. Nissen said.

He noted that current alternatives would include the PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe, but a future candidate could be the oral bempedoic acid (Nexletol), which is currently being evaluated in a large outcomes trial (CLEAR Outcomes).

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

Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).

The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.

One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.

“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.

These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.

The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.

Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.

“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”

The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.

The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.

“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”

The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”

Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.

“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”

These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.

“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”

The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.

Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.

“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”

Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.

She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.

In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).

The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.

One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.

“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.

These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.

The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.

Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.

“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”

The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.

The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.

“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”

The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”

Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.

“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”

These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.

“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”

The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.

Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.

“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”

Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.

She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.

In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).

The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.

One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.

“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.

These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.

The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.

Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.

“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”

The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.

The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.

“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”

The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”

Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.

“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”

These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.

“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”

The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.

Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.

“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”

Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.

She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.

In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

For many years, COPD has remained one of the top four leading causes of death in the United States according to CDC data. Around the world, it is responsible for about 3 million deaths annually. It is estimated that 16 million Americans are now diagnosed with COPD. However, it is commonly agreed by experts that it is widely underdiagnosed and there may be millions more suffering from this disease.

The direct costs of COPD are around $49 billion a year in direct costs, with billions more in indirect costs. Around the globe, COPD is one of the top three causes of death, with 90% of deaths happening in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of COPD is expected to grow over time because of the aging population and continued exposure to COPD risk factors.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease report (or GOLD) is revised every year, translated into many languages, and used by health care workers globally. It was started in 1998, and its aim was to produce guidelines based on the best scientific evidence available that was nonbiased to be used for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. The first report was issued in 2001. The method of producing the GOLD report was to do a search of PubMed for evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies. Those not captured by this method could be submitted for review. The science committee then meets twice a year and reviews each publication, eventually agreeing on a set of guidelines/updates.
 

2022 GOLD Report

For the 2022 GOLD report, 160 new references were added. Overall, the GOLD report is five chapters (more than 150 pages) giving in-depth guidance for the diagnosis, prevention, management, and treatment of patients with stable COPD, COPD exacerbations, and hospitalized patients.

The report suggests that COPD is being underdiagnosed. It’s important for primary care doctors to understand the new guidelines, because they are the clinicians who are most likely to be diagnosing and treating patients with COPD.

Family physicians and internists will be seeing more and more cases as the population ages, and we need to do a better job of recognizing patients who have COPD. If possible, we should try to have spirometry available in our practices. Like any other disease, we know prevention works best so primary care physicians also need to be looking for risk factors, such as smoking history, and help patients try to reduce them if possible. Below is more explanation of the latest guidelines.

For most of us, when we learned about COPD as a disease, the terms “chronic bronchitis” and “emphysema” were emphasized. These words are no longer used as synonymous for COPD.

The disease is now described as involving chronic limitation in airflow that results from a combination of small airway disease and parenchymal destruction (emphysema). The rates of each vary from person to person and progress at different rates. Key factors that contribute to COPD disease burden include chronic inflammation, narrowing of small airways, loss of alveolar attachments, loss of elastic recoil, and mucociliary dysfunction, according to the 2022 GOLD report.

Respiratory symptoms may precede the onset of airflow limitation. COPD should be considered in any patient with dyspnea, chronic cough or sputum production, a history of recurrent lower respiratory tract infections, and risk factors for the disease.

The biggest risk factor for COPD is smoking. Other risk factors include occupational exposure, e-cigarette use, pollution, genetic factors, and comorbid conditions. Symptoms of the disease can include chest tightness, wheezing, and fatigue.

To make a diagnosis of COPD, spirometry is required, the latest GOLD report says. A postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC less than 0.70 confirms persistent airflow limitation and hence COPD. This value is used in clinical trials and forms the basis of what most treatment guidelines are derived from. It would be beneficial for any physician treating COPD patients to have easy access to spirometry. It provides the most reproducible and objective measurement of airflow limitation. Also, it was found that assessing the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation to decide therapeutic decisions is no longer recommended and thus, asking the patient to stop inhaled medications beforehand is unnecessary. To access the impact COPD has on a patient’s life beyond dyspnea, the guidelines recommend doing a disease-specific health questionnaire, such as the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Along with patient symptoms and history of exacerbations, spirometry is crucial for the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decisions in COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidance. The best predictor of frequent exacerbations, however, is a history of previous exacerbations. In cases where there is a discrepancy between airflow limitation and symptoms, additional testing should be considered. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) screening should be considered in younger patients (under 45 years) with perilobular emphysema, and those in areas of high AATD prevalence. Chest x-rays are not recommended in diagnosing COPD but can be helpful if other comorbidities are present. CT scan is not routinely recommended but should be used only for the detection of bronchiectasis, if the patient meets the criteria for lung cancer screening, if surgery is necessary, or if other diseases may need to be evaluated.

Pulse oximetry can be helpful in accessing degree of severity, respiratory failure, and right heart failure. Walking tests can be helpful for evaluating disability and mortality risk. Other tests that have been used but are not routinely recommended include plethysmography and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

Composite scores can identify patients who are at increased risk of mortality. One such score is the BODE (Body mass, Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise) method. Biomarkers are being investigated, but data are still not available to recommend their routine use.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

For many years, COPD has remained one of the top four leading causes of death in the United States according to CDC data. Around the world, it is responsible for about 3 million deaths annually. It is estimated that 16 million Americans are now diagnosed with COPD. However, it is commonly agreed by experts that it is widely underdiagnosed and there may be millions more suffering from this disease.

The direct costs of COPD are around $49 billion a year in direct costs, with billions more in indirect costs. Around the globe, COPD is one of the top three causes of death, with 90% of deaths happening in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of COPD is expected to grow over time because of the aging population and continued exposure to COPD risk factors.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease report (or GOLD) is revised every year, translated into many languages, and used by health care workers globally. It was started in 1998, and its aim was to produce guidelines based on the best scientific evidence available that was nonbiased to be used for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. The first report was issued in 2001. The method of producing the GOLD report was to do a search of PubMed for evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies. Those not captured by this method could be submitted for review. The science committee then meets twice a year and reviews each publication, eventually agreeing on a set of guidelines/updates.
 

2022 GOLD Report

For the 2022 GOLD report, 160 new references were added. Overall, the GOLD report is five chapters (more than 150 pages) giving in-depth guidance for the diagnosis, prevention, management, and treatment of patients with stable COPD, COPD exacerbations, and hospitalized patients.

The report suggests that COPD is being underdiagnosed. It’s important for primary care doctors to understand the new guidelines, because they are the clinicians who are most likely to be diagnosing and treating patients with COPD.

Family physicians and internists will be seeing more and more cases as the population ages, and we need to do a better job of recognizing patients who have COPD. If possible, we should try to have spirometry available in our practices. Like any other disease, we know prevention works best so primary care physicians also need to be looking for risk factors, such as smoking history, and help patients try to reduce them if possible. Below is more explanation of the latest guidelines.

For most of us, when we learned about COPD as a disease, the terms “chronic bronchitis” and “emphysema” were emphasized. These words are no longer used as synonymous for COPD.

The disease is now described as involving chronic limitation in airflow that results from a combination of small airway disease and parenchymal destruction (emphysema). The rates of each vary from person to person and progress at different rates. Key factors that contribute to COPD disease burden include chronic inflammation, narrowing of small airways, loss of alveolar attachments, loss of elastic recoil, and mucociliary dysfunction, according to the 2022 GOLD report.

Respiratory symptoms may precede the onset of airflow limitation. COPD should be considered in any patient with dyspnea, chronic cough or sputum production, a history of recurrent lower respiratory tract infections, and risk factors for the disease.

The biggest risk factor for COPD is smoking. Other risk factors include occupational exposure, e-cigarette use, pollution, genetic factors, and comorbid conditions. Symptoms of the disease can include chest tightness, wheezing, and fatigue.

To make a diagnosis of COPD, spirometry is required, the latest GOLD report says. A postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC less than 0.70 confirms persistent airflow limitation and hence COPD. This value is used in clinical trials and forms the basis of what most treatment guidelines are derived from. It would be beneficial for any physician treating COPD patients to have easy access to spirometry. It provides the most reproducible and objective measurement of airflow limitation. Also, it was found that assessing the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation to decide therapeutic decisions is no longer recommended and thus, asking the patient to stop inhaled medications beforehand is unnecessary. To access the impact COPD has on a patient’s life beyond dyspnea, the guidelines recommend doing a disease-specific health questionnaire, such as the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Along with patient symptoms and history of exacerbations, spirometry is crucial for the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decisions in COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidance. The best predictor of frequent exacerbations, however, is a history of previous exacerbations. In cases where there is a discrepancy between airflow limitation and symptoms, additional testing should be considered. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) screening should be considered in younger patients (under 45 years) with perilobular emphysema, and those in areas of high AATD prevalence. Chest x-rays are not recommended in diagnosing COPD but can be helpful if other comorbidities are present. CT scan is not routinely recommended but should be used only for the detection of bronchiectasis, if the patient meets the criteria for lung cancer screening, if surgery is necessary, or if other diseases may need to be evaluated.

Pulse oximetry can be helpful in accessing degree of severity, respiratory failure, and right heart failure. Walking tests can be helpful for evaluating disability and mortality risk. Other tests that have been used but are not routinely recommended include plethysmography and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

Composite scores can identify patients who are at increased risk of mortality. One such score is the BODE (Body mass, Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise) method. Biomarkers are being investigated, but data are still not available to recommend their routine use.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

For many years, COPD has remained one of the top four leading causes of death in the United States according to CDC data. Around the world, it is responsible for about 3 million deaths annually. It is estimated that 16 million Americans are now diagnosed with COPD. However, it is commonly agreed by experts that it is widely underdiagnosed and there may be millions more suffering from this disease.

The direct costs of COPD are around $49 billion a year in direct costs, with billions more in indirect costs. Around the globe, COPD is one of the top three causes of death, with 90% of deaths happening in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of COPD is expected to grow over time because of the aging population and continued exposure to COPD risk factors.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease report (or GOLD) is revised every year, translated into many languages, and used by health care workers globally. It was started in 1998, and its aim was to produce guidelines based on the best scientific evidence available that was nonbiased to be used for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. The first report was issued in 2001. The method of producing the GOLD report was to do a search of PubMed for evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies. Those not captured by this method could be submitted for review. The science committee then meets twice a year and reviews each publication, eventually agreeing on a set of guidelines/updates.
 

2022 GOLD Report

For the 2022 GOLD report, 160 new references were added. Overall, the GOLD report is five chapters (more than 150 pages) giving in-depth guidance for the diagnosis, prevention, management, and treatment of patients with stable COPD, COPD exacerbations, and hospitalized patients.

The report suggests that COPD is being underdiagnosed. It’s important for primary care doctors to understand the new guidelines, because they are the clinicians who are most likely to be diagnosing and treating patients with COPD.

Family physicians and internists will be seeing more and more cases as the population ages, and we need to do a better job of recognizing patients who have COPD. If possible, we should try to have spirometry available in our practices. Like any other disease, we know prevention works best so primary care physicians also need to be looking for risk factors, such as smoking history, and help patients try to reduce them if possible. Below is more explanation of the latest guidelines.

For most of us, when we learned about COPD as a disease, the terms “chronic bronchitis” and “emphysema” were emphasized. These words are no longer used as synonymous for COPD.

The disease is now described as involving chronic limitation in airflow that results from a combination of small airway disease and parenchymal destruction (emphysema). The rates of each vary from person to person and progress at different rates. Key factors that contribute to COPD disease burden include chronic inflammation, narrowing of small airways, loss of alveolar attachments, loss of elastic recoil, and mucociliary dysfunction, according to the 2022 GOLD report.

Respiratory symptoms may precede the onset of airflow limitation. COPD should be considered in any patient with dyspnea, chronic cough or sputum production, a history of recurrent lower respiratory tract infections, and risk factors for the disease.

The biggest risk factor for COPD is smoking. Other risk factors include occupational exposure, e-cigarette use, pollution, genetic factors, and comorbid conditions. Symptoms of the disease can include chest tightness, wheezing, and fatigue.

To make a diagnosis of COPD, spirometry is required, the latest GOLD report says. A postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC less than 0.70 confirms persistent airflow limitation and hence COPD. This value is used in clinical trials and forms the basis of what most treatment guidelines are derived from. It would be beneficial for any physician treating COPD patients to have easy access to spirometry. It provides the most reproducible and objective measurement of airflow limitation. Also, it was found that assessing the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation to decide therapeutic decisions is no longer recommended and thus, asking the patient to stop inhaled medications beforehand is unnecessary. To access the impact COPD has on a patient’s life beyond dyspnea, the guidelines recommend doing a disease-specific health questionnaire, such as the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Along with patient symptoms and history of exacerbations, spirometry is crucial for the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decisions in COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidance. The best predictor of frequent exacerbations, however, is a history of previous exacerbations. In cases where there is a discrepancy between airflow limitation and symptoms, additional testing should be considered. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) screening should be considered in younger patients (under 45 years) with perilobular emphysema, and those in areas of high AATD prevalence. Chest x-rays are not recommended in diagnosing COPD but can be helpful if other comorbidities are present. CT scan is not routinely recommended but should be used only for the detection of bronchiectasis, if the patient meets the criteria for lung cancer screening, if surgery is necessary, or if other diseases may need to be evaluated.

Pulse oximetry can be helpful in accessing degree of severity, respiratory failure, and right heart failure. Walking tests can be helpful for evaluating disability and mortality risk. Other tests that have been used but are not routinely recommended include plethysmography and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

Composite scores can identify patients who are at increased risk of mortality. One such score is the BODE (Body mass, Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise) method. Biomarkers are being investigated, but data are still not available to recommend their routine use.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As it gears up for the first in-person scientific sessions for 3 years, the American Diabetes Association has issued an addendum to its most recent annual clinical practice recommendations published in December 2021, the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, based on recent trial evidence and consensus.

The update informs clinicians about:

• The effect of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist (Kerendia) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.
• The effect of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor on heart failure and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation to remove race in the formula for calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Checking with Dr Gabbay -- RM 08/16

“This is the fifth year that we are able to update the Standards of Care after it has been published through our Living Standards of Care updates, making it possible to give diabetes care providers the most important information and the latest evidence relevant to their practice,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief scientific and medical officer, said in a press release from the organization.

The addendum, entitled, “Living Standards of Care,” updates Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” and Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management” of the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. 

The amendments were approved by the ADA Professional Practice Committee, which is responsible for developing the Standards of Care. The American College of Cardiology reviewed and endorsed the section on CVD and risk management.

The Living Standards Update was published online in Diabetes Care.
 

CVD and risk management

In the Addendum to Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:

• “For patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease treated with maximum tolerated doses of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, addition of finerenone should be considered to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the risk of chronic kidney disease progression. A”
• “Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be considered for treatment with finerenone to reduce cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of chronic kidney disease progression.”
• “In patients with type 2 diabetes and established heart failure with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, an SGLT2 inhibitor [with proven benefit in this patient population] is recommended to reduce risk of worsening heart failure, hospitalizations for heart failure, and cardiovascular death. ”

In the section “Statin Treatment,” the addendum no longer states that “a prospective trial of a newer fibrate ... is ongoing,” because that trial investigating pemafibrate (Kowa), a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha modulator (or fibrate), has been discontinued.
 

Chronic kidney disease and risk management

In the Addendum to Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes: 

• “Traditionally, eGFR is calculated from serum creatinine using a validated formula. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is preferred. ... Historically, a correction factor for muscle mass was included in a modified equation for African Americans; however, due to various issues with inequities, it was decided to the equation such that it applies to all. Hence, a committee was convened, resulting in the recommendation for immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the U.S.” (This is based on an National Kidney Foundation and American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation.)
• “Additionally, increased use of cystatin C, especially to confirm estimated GFR in adults who are at risk for or have chronic kidney disease, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone.” 

Evidence from clinical trials

The update is based on findings from the following clinical trials:

• Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD)
• Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Clinical Diagnosis of Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD)
• FIDELITY, a prespecified pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD
• Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved)
• Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with PRESERVED Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (PRESERVED-HF)
• Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes by Reducing Triglycerides in Patients with Diabetes (PROMINENT).

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

As it gears up for the first in-person scientific sessions for 3 years, the American Diabetes Association has issued an addendum to its most recent annual clinical practice recommendations published in December 2021, the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, based on recent trial evidence and consensus.

The update informs clinicians about:

• The effect of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist (Kerendia) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.
• The effect of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor on heart failure and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation to remove race in the formula for calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Checking with Dr Gabbay -- RM 08/16

“This is the fifth year that we are able to update the Standards of Care after it has been published through our Living Standards of Care updates, making it possible to give diabetes care providers the most important information and the latest evidence relevant to their practice,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief scientific and medical officer, said in a press release from the organization.

The addendum, entitled, “Living Standards of Care,” updates Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” and Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management” of the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. 

The amendments were approved by the ADA Professional Practice Committee, which is responsible for developing the Standards of Care. The American College of Cardiology reviewed and endorsed the section on CVD and risk management.

The Living Standards Update was published online in Diabetes Care.
 

CVD and risk management

In the Addendum to Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:

• “For patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease treated with maximum tolerated doses of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, addition of finerenone should be considered to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the risk of chronic kidney disease progression. A”
• “Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be considered for treatment with finerenone to reduce cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of chronic kidney disease progression.”
• “In patients with type 2 diabetes and established heart failure with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, an SGLT2 inhibitor [with proven benefit in this patient population] is recommended to reduce risk of worsening heart failure, hospitalizations for heart failure, and cardiovascular death. ”

In the section “Statin Treatment,” the addendum no longer states that “a prospective trial of a newer fibrate ... is ongoing,” because that trial investigating pemafibrate (Kowa), a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha modulator (or fibrate), has been discontinued.
 

Chronic kidney disease and risk management

In the Addendum to Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes: 

• “Traditionally, eGFR is calculated from serum creatinine using a validated formula. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is preferred. ... Historically, a correction factor for muscle mass was included in a modified equation for African Americans; however, due to various issues with inequities, it was decided to the equation such that it applies to all. Hence, a committee was convened, resulting in the recommendation for immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the U.S.” (This is based on an National Kidney Foundation and American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation.)
• “Additionally, increased use of cystatin C, especially to confirm estimated GFR in adults who are at risk for or have chronic kidney disease, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone.” 

Evidence from clinical trials

The update is based on findings from the following clinical trials:

• Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD)
• Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Clinical Diagnosis of Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD)
• FIDELITY, a prespecified pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD
• Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved)
• Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with PRESERVED Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (PRESERVED-HF)
• Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes by Reducing Triglycerides in Patients with Diabetes (PROMINENT).

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

As it gears up for the first in-person scientific sessions for 3 years, the American Diabetes Association has issued an addendum to its most recent annual clinical practice recommendations published in December 2021, the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, based on recent trial evidence and consensus.

The update informs clinicians about:

• The effect of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist (Kerendia) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.
• The effect of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor on heart failure and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation to remove race in the formula for calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Checking with Dr Gabbay -- RM 08/16

“This is the fifth year that we are able to update the Standards of Care after it has been published through our Living Standards of Care updates, making it possible to give diabetes care providers the most important information and the latest evidence relevant to their practice,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief scientific and medical officer, said in a press release from the organization.

The addendum, entitled, “Living Standards of Care,” updates Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” and Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management” of the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. 

The amendments were approved by the ADA Professional Practice Committee, which is responsible for developing the Standards of Care. The American College of Cardiology reviewed and endorsed the section on CVD and risk management.

The Living Standards Update was published online in Diabetes Care.
 

CVD and risk management

In the Addendum to Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:

• “For patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease treated with maximum tolerated doses of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, addition of finerenone should be considered to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the risk of chronic kidney disease progression. A”
• “Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be considered for treatment with finerenone to reduce cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of chronic kidney disease progression.”
• “In patients with type 2 diabetes and established heart failure with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, an SGLT2 inhibitor [with proven benefit in this patient population] is recommended to reduce risk of worsening heart failure, hospitalizations for heart failure, and cardiovascular death. ”

In the section “Statin Treatment,” the addendum no longer states that “a prospective trial of a newer fibrate ... is ongoing,” because that trial investigating pemafibrate (Kowa), a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha modulator (or fibrate), has been discontinued.
 

Chronic kidney disease and risk management

In the Addendum to Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes: 

• “Traditionally, eGFR is calculated from serum creatinine using a validated formula. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is preferred. ... Historically, a correction factor for muscle mass was included in a modified equation for African Americans; however, due to various issues with inequities, it was decided to the equation such that it applies to all. Hence, a committee was convened, resulting in the recommendation for immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the U.S.” (This is based on an National Kidney Foundation and American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation.)
• “Additionally, increased use of cystatin C, especially to confirm estimated GFR in adults who are at risk for or have chronic kidney disease, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone.” 

Evidence from clinical trials

The update is based on findings from the following clinical trials:

• Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD)
• Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Clinical Diagnosis of Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD)
• FIDELITY, a prespecified pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD
• Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved)
• Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with PRESERVED Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (PRESERVED-HF)
• Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes by Reducing Triglycerides in Patients with Diabetes (PROMINENT).

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

COPENHAGEN – New recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology suggest starting short-term methotrexate and glucocorticoids when starting or changing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), although rapid glucocorticoid dose reduction and discontinuation is also emphasized.

“In this respect we are at odds with the American College of Rheumatology guideline,” said Josef S. Smolen, MD, professor of internal medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, who presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

courtesy EULAR

More evidence supports the recommendation to start methotrexate plus glucocorticoids since this is not surpassed by several biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) plus methotrexate, said Dr. Smolen, who spoke on behalf of his coauthors, Robert Landewe, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Center, and the rest of the Global Task Force for the 2022 Update of the EULAR RA-Management Recommendations.

In addition, “JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors are now only recommended for patients who do not have risk factors for cardiovascular or malignant diseases, but otherwise they remain on the same level [phase 2] as bDMARDS,” he said.

“Registries hitherto do not observe what is reported in the ORAL Surveillance randomized controlled trial [RCT],” but, he added, “RCTs are the decisive studies and we await the baricitinib data on a similar population at risk.”

Dr. Smolen also noted that the ENTRACTE trial comparing tocilizumab with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors did not report similar data as ORAL Surveillance.

“Tapering b/ts [biologic/targeted synthetic] and cs [conventional synthetic] DMARDs in sustained remission have been brought together with the need to discontinue glucocorticoids before other drugs are tapered has been more strongly emphasized,” he explained.

Most of the recommendations from the 2019 update remain unchanged, including all five overarching principles and 6 of the 12 individual items.

Rheumatologist Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, joined the meeting remotely and commented on the working draft of the treatment recommendations. “While much was retained from the previous version, there were several important updates,” he said. “Regarding the use of steroids, it is recommended that when they are used, they should be stopped as soon as possible. Regarding jakinibs, which EULAR considers as a class, they recommended consideration of risk factors for MACE events prior to their utilization,” he said.

Methotrexate plus glucocorticoids (Recommendation 6)

In recent years, many recommendations have suggested combining methotrexate with glucocorticoids as a first-treatment strategy upon diagnosis of RA, said Dr. Smolen, and initially “guidance from the ACR was in agreement.”

In 2021, however, “the ACR published a paper, albeit with a very low level of evidence, that one should not primarily use a combination of methotrexate plus glucocorticoids,” he added, with an emphasis on the “very low level of evidence.”

“Some people on the task force even interpreted it as being in favor of using expensive drugs,” he explained. “This needed to be addressed in the 2022 update.”

The global task force wanted to look further at the benefit-to-risk ratio, despite it being discussed in the 2019 recommendations. “We wanted to check that short-term use of glucocorticoids was not associated with major risks,” said Dr. Smolen. “Glucocorticoids are not used for a long time if used as a bridging therapy. We felt we had to more clearly define what we meant by short term.”

A systematic review of around 7,000 papers, led to consideration of 10 unique studies. “One study published a few years ago in PLOS One, did not find any evidence of increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Smolen reported, “however, use of over 1,000 mg of glucocorticoid was associated with a trend for high cardiovascular risk.”

“This trend was confirmed by data from the CorEvitas registry, which shows that up to 1,100 mg of cumulative dose was associated with no increased risk, but above this with increasing dose there was an increased and significant risk,” he added.

When the task force looked at trials that mandated and prespecified a reduction and stopping of glucocorticoids, they found less than 10% persistence of glucocorticoids at 12 months in all trials, some even reduced use to zero.

Dr. Smolen and colleagues also looked at data from the NORD-STAR trial, that compared methotrexate and glucocorticoids with methotrexate and three bDMARDs, namely an anti-TNF inhibitor, certolizumab pegol; anti–co-stimulation, abatacept; and an anti–interleukin-6 receptor, tocilizumab.

“These data prove the validity of the EULAR RA management recommendations regarding the unsurpassed benefit of methotrexate plus glucocorticoids in early RA,” Dr. Smolen said.

“This is confirmation of efficacy and that if you induce tapering and stopping it is not dangerous,” he added. “The level of evidence was very high, and it is the highest level of agreement we have had for any glucocorticoid recommendation over recent years.”

As such, Recommendation 6 says that shortening glucocorticoids should be considered when initiating or changing csDMARDS, in different dose regimens and routes of administration, but should be tapered and discontinued as rapidly as clinically feasible.
 

JAK inhibitor placed relative to DMARDs (Recommendation 10)

A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested cardiovascular risks and malignancy risks were higher with the JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, compared with TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The task force therefore felt the need to evaluate the place of JAK inhibitors next to biologic DMARDs “once phase one with methotrexate plus glucocorticoids has failed,” Dr. Smolen said.

After a systematic literature review of around 4,500 papers, the researchers evaluated 88 safety papers including the ORAL Surveillance study. “This very clearly showed that tocilizumab was not noninferior according to the noninferiority criteria with an upper limit of 1.8 [hazard ratio] and this was independent of dose, compared with TNF-alpha inhibitor,” said Dr. Smolen. “The major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were not different, nor were malignancies and overall mortality.”

Dr. Smolen also referred to the ENTRACTE trial that compared etanercept with tocilizumab, and again, there was no evidence of an increased risk of MACE nor mortality for tocilizumab compared with a TNF-alpha inhibitor.

“The increased MACE risk in the ORAL Surveillance trial is unlikely due to inhibition of IL-6 and must be due to some other effects than IL-6 signaling,” he said.

As such, the agreed-on recommendation was that, “if the treatment target is not achieved with the first csDMARD strategy, when poor prognostic factors are present, a bDMARD should be added; JAK inhibitors may be considered but pertinent risk factors must be taken into account [aged over 65 years, history of current or past smoking, either cardiovascular or malignancy risk factors, and risk factors for thromboembolic events].”

There was a high level of agreement by the group for this recommendation.

Switching DMARDs

The task force considered their recommendations on switching DMARDs based on a systematic literature review of 47 papers.

EULAR previously strongly recommended a combination of csDMARDs with bDMARDs (including JAK inhibitors), and this recommendation remains the same except for a note added about risks of tsDMARDs.

Recommendation 10 relates to failure of phase 2 treatment and what to do when the first bDMARD or a tsDMARD has failed (including as per new recommendations, a JAK inhibitor), and if one TNF or IL-6 receptor inhibitor therapy has failed. In this case, patients may receive an agent with another mode of action or a second TNF/IL-6 receptor inhibitor, said Dr. Smolen.

Recommendation 11 has been combined with recommendation 12, he added. “If a patient is in persistent remission after having tapered glucocorticoids, one can consider tapering bDMARDs, or tsDMARDs especially if this treatment is combined with a csDMARD.

“We decided to put more emphasis on the stopping of glucocorticoids, namely not saying ‘tapering’ but ‘discontinued,’ and if the patient is in sustained remission, then consider reduction of DMARDs [biologic, targeted synthetic or conventional synthetic DMARDs],” he explained. “This is left to the discretion of the patient and the physician as to which one should be tapered first. We don’t recommend to taper everything because the patient might be affected by flares but this needs further discussion.”

Dr. Smolen ended his presentation by looking ahead to the next set of recommendations: “With the current rate of evidence development, we expect an update of the recommendations to be necessary in about 3-4 years.”

This article was updated on 6/9/2022.

COPENHAGEN – New recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology suggest starting short-term methotrexate and glucocorticoids when starting or changing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), although rapid glucocorticoid dose reduction and discontinuation is also emphasized.

“In this respect we are at odds with the American College of Rheumatology guideline,” said Josef S. Smolen, MD, professor of internal medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, who presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

courtesy EULAR

More evidence supports the recommendation to start methotrexate plus glucocorticoids since this is not surpassed by several biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) plus methotrexate, said Dr. Smolen, who spoke on behalf of his coauthors, Robert Landewe, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Center, and the rest of the Global Task Force for the 2022 Update of the EULAR RA-Management Recommendations.

In addition, “JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors are now only recommended for patients who do not have risk factors for cardiovascular or malignant diseases, but otherwise they remain on the same level [phase 2] as bDMARDS,” he said.

“Registries hitherto do not observe what is reported in the ORAL Surveillance randomized controlled trial [RCT],” but, he added, “RCTs are the decisive studies and we await the baricitinib data on a similar population at risk.”

Dr. Smolen also noted that the ENTRACTE trial comparing tocilizumab with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors did not report similar data as ORAL Surveillance.

“Tapering b/ts [biologic/targeted synthetic] and cs [conventional synthetic] DMARDs in sustained remission have been brought together with the need to discontinue glucocorticoids before other drugs are tapered has been more strongly emphasized,” he explained.

Most of the recommendations from the 2019 update remain unchanged, including all five overarching principles and 6 of the 12 individual items.

Rheumatologist Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, joined the meeting remotely and commented on the working draft of the treatment recommendations. “While much was retained from the previous version, there were several important updates,” he said. “Regarding the use of steroids, it is recommended that when they are used, they should be stopped as soon as possible. Regarding jakinibs, which EULAR considers as a class, they recommended consideration of risk factors for MACE events prior to their utilization,” he said.

Methotrexate plus glucocorticoids (Recommendation 6)

In recent years, many recommendations have suggested combining methotrexate with glucocorticoids as a first-treatment strategy upon diagnosis of RA, said Dr. Smolen, and initially “guidance from the ACR was in agreement.”

In 2021, however, “the ACR published a paper, albeit with a very low level of evidence, that one should not primarily use a combination of methotrexate plus glucocorticoids,” he added, with an emphasis on the “very low level of evidence.”

“Some people on the task force even interpreted it as being in favor of using expensive drugs,” he explained. “This needed to be addressed in the 2022 update.”

The global task force wanted to look further at the benefit-to-risk ratio, despite it being discussed in the 2019 recommendations. “We wanted to check that short-term use of glucocorticoids was not associated with major risks,” said Dr. Smolen. “Glucocorticoids are not used for a long time if used as a bridging therapy. We felt we had to more clearly define what we meant by short term.”

A systematic review of around 7,000 papers, led to consideration of 10 unique studies. “One study published a few years ago in PLOS One, did not find any evidence of increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Smolen reported, “however, use of over 1,000 mg of glucocorticoid was associated with a trend for high cardiovascular risk.”

“This trend was confirmed by data from the CorEvitas registry, which shows that up to 1,100 mg of cumulative dose was associated with no increased risk, but above this with increasing dose there was an increased and significant risk,” he added.

When the task force looked at trials that mandated and prespecified a reduction and stopping of glucocorticoids, they found less than 10% persistence of glucocorticoids at 12 months in all trials, some even reduced use to zero.

Dr. Smolen and colleagues also looked at data from the NORD-STAR trial, that compared methotrexate and glucocorticoids with methotrexate and three bDMARDs, namely an anti-TNF inhibitor, certolizumab pegol; anti–co-stimulation, abatacept; and an anti–interleukin-6 receptor, tocilizumab.

“These data prove the validity of the EULAR RA management recommendations regarding the unsurpassed benefit of methotrexate plus glucocorticoids in early RA,” Dr. Smolen said.

“This is confirmation of efficacy and that if you induce tapering and stopping it is not dangerous,” he added. “The level of evidence was very high, and it is the highest level of agreement we have had for any glucocorticoid recommendation over recent years.”

As such, Recommendation 6 says that shortening glucocorticoids should be considered when initiating or changing csDMARDS, in different dose regimens and routes of administration, but should be tapered and discontinued as rapidly as clinically feasible.
 

JAK inhibitor placed relative to DMARDs (Recommendation 10)

A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested cardiovascular risks and malignancy risks were higher with the JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, compared with TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The task force therefore felt the need to evaluate the place of JAK inhibitors next to biologic DMARDs “once phase one with methotrexate plus glucocorticoids has failed,” Dr. Smolen said.

After a systematic literature review of around 4,500 papers, the researchers evaluated 88 safety papers including the ORAL Surveillance study. “This very clearly showed that tocilizumab was not noninferior according to the noninferiority criteria with an upper limit of 1.8 [hazard ratio] and this was independent of dose, compared with TNF-alpha inhibitor,” said Dr. Smolen. “The major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were not different, nor were malignancies and overall mortality.”

Dr. Smolen also referred to the ENTRACTE trial that compared etanercept with tocilizumab, and again, there was no evidence of an increased risk of MACE nor mortality for tocilizumab compared with a TNF-alpha inhibitor.

“The increased MACE risk in the ORAL Surveillance trial is unlikely due to inhibition of IL-6 and must be due to some other effects than IL-6 signaling,” he said.

As such, the agreed-on recommendation was that, “if the treatment target is not achieved with the first csDMARD strategy, when poor prognostic factors are present, a bDMARD should be added; JAK inhibitors may be considered but pertinent risk factors must be taken into account [aged over 65 years, history of current or past smoking, either cardiovascular or malignancy risk factors, and risk factors for thromboembolic events].”

There was a high level of agreement by the group for this recommendation.

Switching DMARDs

The task force considered their recommendations on switching DMARDs based on a systematic literature review of 47 papers.

EULAR previously strongly recommended a combination of csDMARDs with bDMARDs (including JAK inhibitors), and this recommendation remains the same except for a note added about risks of tsDMARDs.

Recommendation 10 relates to failure of phase 2 treatment and what to do when the first bDMARD or a tsDMARD has failed (including as per new recommendations, a JAK inhibitor), and if one TNF or IL-6 receptor inhibitor therapy has failed. In this case, patients may receive an agent with another mode of action or a second TNF/IL-6 receptor inhibitor, said Dr. Smolen.

Recommendation 11 has been combined with recommendation 12, he added. “If a patient is in persistent remission after having tapered glucocorticoids, one can consider tapering bDMARDs, or tsDMARDs especially if this treatment is combined with a csDMARD.

“We decided to put more emphasis on the stopping of glucocorticoids, namely not saying ‘tapering’ but ‘discontinued,’ and if the patient is in sustained remission, then consider reduction of DMARDs [biologic, targeted synthetic or conventional synthetic DMARDs],” he explained. “This is left to the discretion of the patient and the physician as to which one should be tapered first. We don’t recommend to taper everything because the patient might be affected by flares but this needs further discussion.”

Dr. Smolen ended his presentation by looking ahead to the next set of recommendations: “With the current rate of evidence development, we expect an update of the recommendations to be necessary in about 3-4 years.”

This article was updated on 6/9/2022.

COPENHAGEN – New recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology suggest starting short-term methotrexate and glucocorticoids when starting or changing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), although rapid glucocorticoid dose reduction and discontinuation is also emphasized.

“In this respect we are at odds with the American College of Rheumatology guideline,” said Josef S. Smolen, MD, professor of internal medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, who presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

courtesy EULAR

More evidence supports the recommendation to start methotrexate plus glucocorticoids since this is not surpassed by several biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) plus methotrexate, said Dr. Smolen, who spoke on behalf of his coauthors, Robert Landewe, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Center, and the rest of the Global Task Force for the 2022 Update of the EULAR RA-Management Recommendations.

In addition, “JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors are now only recommended for patients who do not have risk factors for cardiovascular or malignant diseases, but otherwise they remain on the same level [phase 2] as bDMARDS,” he said.

“Registries hitherto do not observe what is reported in the ORAL Surveillance randomized controlled trial [RCT],” but, he added, “RCTs are the decisive studies and we await the baricitinib data on a similar population at risk.”

Dr. Smolen also noted that the ENTRACTE trial comparing tocilizumab with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors did not report similar data as ORAL Surveillance.

“Tapering b/ts [biologic/targeted synthetic] and cs [conventional synthetic] DMARDs in sustained remission have been brought together with the need to discontinue glucocorticoids before other drugs are tapered has been more strongly emphasized,” he explained.

Most of the recommendations from the 2019 update remain unchanged, including all five overarching principles and 6 of the 12 individual items.

Rheumatologist Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, joined the meeting remotely and commented on the working draft of the treatment recommendations. “While much was retained from the previous version, there were several important updates,” he said. “Regarding the use of steroids, it is recommended that when they are used, they should be stopped as soon as possible. Regarding jakinibs, which EULAR considers as a class, they recommended consideration of risk factors for MACE events prior to their utilization,” he said.

Methotrexate plus glucocorticoids (Recommendation 6)

In recent years, many recommendations have suggested combining methotrexate with glucocorticoids as a first-treatment strategy upon diagnosis of RA, said Dr. Smolen, and initially “guidance from the ACR was in agreement.”

In 2021, however, “the ACR published a paper, albeit with a very low level of evidence, that one should not primarily use a combination of methotrexate plus glucocorticoids,” he added, with an emphasis on the “very low level of evidence.”

“Some people on the task force even interpreted it as being in favor of using expensive drugs,” he explained. “This needed to be addressed in the 2022 update.”

The global task force wanted to look further at the benefit-to-risk ratio, despite it being discussed in the 2019 recommendations. “We wanted to check that short-term use of glucocorticoids was not associated with major risks,” said Dr. Smolen. “Glucocorticoids are not used for a long time if used as a bridging therapy. We felt we had to more clearly define what we meant by short term.”

A systematic review of around 7,000 papers, led to consideration of 10 unique studies. “One study published a few years ago in PLOS One, did not find any evidence of increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Smolen reported, “however, use of over 1,000 mg of glucocorticoid was associated with a trend for high cardiovascular risk.”

“This trend was confirmed by data from the CorEvitas registry, which shows that up to 1,100 mg of cumulative dose was associated with no increased risk, but above this with increasing dose there was an increased and significant risk,” he added.

When the task force looked at trials that mandated and prespecified a reduction and stopping of glucocorticoids, they found less than 10% persistence of glucocorticoids at 12 months in all trials, some even reduced use to zero.

Dr. Smolen and colleagues also looked at data from the NORD-STAR trial, that compared methotrexate and glucocorticoids with methotrexate and three bDMARDs, namely an anti-TNF inhibitor, certolizumab pegol; anti–co-stimulation, abatacept; and an anti–interleukin-6 receptor, tocilizumab.

“These data prove the validity of the EULAR RA management recommendations regarding the unsurpassed benefit of methotrexate plus glucocorticoids in early RA,” Dr. Smolen said.

“This is confirmation of efficacy and that if you induce tapering and stopping it is not dangerous,” he added. “The level of evidence was very high, and it is the highest level of agreement we have had for any glucocorticoid recommendation over recent years.”

As such, Recommendation 6 says that shortening glucocorticoids should be considered when initiating or changing csDMARDS, in different dose regimens and routes of administration, but should be tapered and discontinued as rapidly as clinically feasible.
 

JAK inhibitor placed relative to DMARDs (Recommendation 10)

A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested cardiovascular risks and malignancy risks were higher with the JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, compared with TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The task force therefore felt the need to evaluate the place of JAK inhibitors next to biologic DMARDs “once phase one with methotrexate plus glucocorticoids has failed,” Dr. Smolen said.

After a systematic literature review of around 4,500 papers, the researchers evaluated 88 safety papers including the ORAL Surveillance study. “This very clearly showed that tocilizumab was not noninferior according to the noninferiority criteria with an upper limit of 1.8 [hazard ratio] and this was independent of dose, compared with TNF-alpha inhibitor,” said Dr. Smolen. “The major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were not different, nor were malignancies and overall mortality.”

Dr. Smolen also referred to the ENTRACTE trial that compared etanercept with tocilizumab, and again, there was no evidence of an increased risk of MACE nor mortality for tocilizumab compared with a TNF-alpha inhibitor.

“The increased MACE risk in the ORAL Surveillance trial is unlikely due to inhibition of IL-6 and must be due to some other effects than IL-6 signaling,” he said.

As such, the agreed-on recommendation was that, “if the treatment target is not achieved with the first csDMARD strategy, when poor prognostic factors are present, a bDMARD should be added; JAK inhibitors may be considered but pertinent risk factors must be taken into account [aged over 65 years, history of current or past smoking, either cardiovascular or malignancy risk factors, and risk factors for thromboembolic events].”

There was a high level of agreement by the group for this recommendation.

Switching DMARDs

The task force considered their recommendations on switching DMARDs based on a systematic literature review of 47 papers.

EULAR previously strongly recommended a combination of csDMARDs with bDMARDs (including JAK inhibitors), and this recommendation remains the same except for a note added about risks of tsDMARDs.

Recommendation 10 relates to failure of phase 2 treatment and what to do when the first bDMARD or a tsDMARD has failed (including as per new recommendations, a JAK inhibitor), and if one TNF or IL-6 receptor inhibitor therapy has failed. In this case, patients may receive an agent with another mode of action or a second TNF/IL-6 receptor inhibitor, said Dr. Smolen.

Recommendation 11 has been combined with recommendation 12, he added. “If a patient is in persistent remission after having tapered glucocorticoids, one can consider tapering bDMARDs, or tsDMARDs especially if this treatment is combined with a csDMARD.

“We decided to put more emphasis on the stopping of glucocorticoids, namely not saying ‘tapering’ but ‘discontinued,’ and if the patient is in sustained remission, then consider reduction of DMARDs [biologic, targeted synthetic or conventional synthetic DMARDs],” he explained. “This is left to the discretion of the patient and the physician as to which one should be tapered first. We don’t recommend to taper everything because the patient might be affected by flares but this needs further discussion.”

Dr. Smolen ended his presentation by looking ahead to the next set of recommendations: “With the current rate of evidence development, we expect an update of the recommendations to be necessary in about 3-4 years.”

This article was updated on 6/9/2022.