CAD & Atherosclerosis

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), 2 years after release of treat-to-target guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society, most patients with LDL cholesterol higher than 70 mg/dL did not receive intensification of therapy, and two-thirds continued to have LDL levels above that level, according to a prospective registry study.

Both guidelines recommend driving LDL-C levels to 50% or below of baseline levels; results from the Getting to an Improved Understanding of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management (GOULD) registry suggest this is rarely achieved. “Unfortunately it’s not a total surprise, but it’s disappointing,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, the study’s lead author.

“Therapeutic inertia seems to be the rule in clinical practice,” said Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Robinson is professor epidemiology and cardiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Patients hesitant

Changes in practice following guidelines can often be slow, but in this case may have been complicated by the fact that statins have a reputation for causing side effects, so some patients may be refusing treatment based on what they’ve seen on the Internet. Even though the study looked at all lipid-lowering agents, the misinformation around statins may be spilling over, according to Dr. Cannon. “There’s in general so much misinformation around COVID and every other topic in the world. That makes people question what is real [about] anything,” said Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Patient characteristics may partly explain slow uptake. “Clinicians may not think further LDL-C lowering is a high enough priority in terms of potential benefit for a given patient in light of the effort being expended to take care of all their other issues and chronic health problems. If the clinician does bring it up to the patient, there may be barriers in terms of additional medication burden, cost, or acquisition issues,” said Dr. Robinson.

The answer may be better evidence and a more personalized approach. Clinical trials that explore defined patient populations could convince patients of a benefit, and payers to reimburse, according to Dr. Robinson.
 

Changing guidance

Another complication is that both the guidelines and the field are rapidly changing. The 2013 AHA guidelines did not include a treatment to goal and focused instead on use of high-dose statins. But the 2018 update reversed course after randomized studies demonstrated a benefit to treating to target. The researchers found no increase in the frequency of treating to target after the release of the 2018 guidelines. “Publication and announcement of guidelines doesn’t mean that people are getting treated better. We really have to implement them,” said Dr. Cannon.

On a positive note, the GOULD researchers found high acceptance of the new proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors, with over 90% of patients continuing those medications after 2 years. “That’s nice and high. If people do get onto the very intensive lipid-lowing therapies, they tend to stay on them,” said Dr. Cannon.
 

What’s next

Still, the lack of intensification is concerning, and the findings led to some consternation in Twitter exchanges, said Dr. Cannon. “People posted ‘Well, what do we do now?’ ” Dr. Cannon’s team is addressing the issue with an algorithm-based risk management program with prospective enrollment. They have conducted educational webinars and provided site-specific reports on LDL status among patients at each center compared to others, and hope that information will improve compliance. In 2020, the group published an interim analysis of the first 5,000 enrollees, and Dr. Cannon expects to finish that study by the end of the year.

Dr. Navar agreed that physicians need to do a better job of testing LDL-C levels after treatment to identify patients who require more aggressive therapy. That can be deferred in some primary prevention patients with high LDL-C but normal particle numbers as measured with ApoB. “But in those at high risk for disease and those with established CVD who are not at goal, as long as they don’t have a life-limiting condition, we should always up-titrate therapy. It’s one of the safest, most effective ways to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Navar.

Key study results

The prospective study included 5,006 patients at 119 centers with a mean age of 68 years. About 40% were women, and 86.1% were White. All had ASCVD and LDL levels of at least 70 mg/dL. After 2 years, 17% had undergone intensification of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Among patients with LDL-C levels ≥ 100 mg/dL, 22% underwent LLT intensification, compared with 14% of patients with LDL-C levels of 70-99 mg/dL.

The vast majority, 92%, of patients who underwent LLT via addition of PCSK9 inhibitors were still taking the drug after 2 years.

Three-quarters (3,768) had lipid level measurements at least once during follow-up, and median LDL-C levels dropped from 120 to 95 mg/dL in the ≥100-mg/dL cohort (P < .001), and from 82 to 77 mg/dL in the 70- to 99-mg/dL cohort (P <. 001). There was no significant difference in the median values in the patients on PCSK9 inhibitors.

In all, 21% of the ≥100-mg/dL cohort achieved LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL at 2 years, versus 34% in the 77- to 99-mg/dL cohort and 52% of patients taking PCSK9 inhibitors.

Patients seen at teaching hospitals were more likely to undergo LLT intensification compared to nonteaching hospitals (25% versus 17%; P < .001), as were those where lipid protocols were in place (22% versus 15%; P < .001), and those treated in cardiology (22%) compared to treatment in internal or family medicine (12%; P <.001). The study was published online June 16 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Cannon, Dr. Navar, and Dr. Robinson disclosed ties with Amgen, which funded the study, and other companies.

Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), 2 years after release of treat-to-target guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society, most patients with LDL cholesterol higher than 70 mg/dL did not receive intensification of therapy, and two-thirds continued to have LDL levels above that level, according to a prospective registry study.

Both guidelines recommend driving LDL-C levels to 50% or below of baseline levels; results from the Getting to an Improved Understanding of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management (GOULD) registry suggest this is rarely achieved. “Unfortunately it’s not a total surprise, but it’s disappointing,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, the study’s lead author.

“Therapeutic inertia seems to be the rule in clinical practice,” said Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Robinson is professor epidemiology and cardiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Patients hesitant

Changes in practice following guidelines can often be slow, but in this case may have been complicated by the fact that statins have a reputation for causing side effects, so some patients may be refusing treatment based on what they’ve seen on the Internet. Even though the study looked at all lipid-lowering agents, the misinformation around statins may be spilling over, according to Dr. Cannon. “There’s in general so much misinformation around COVID and every other topic in the world. That makes people question what is real [about] anything,” said Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Patient characteristics may partly explain slow uptake. “Clinicians may not think further LDL-C lowering is a high enough priority in terms of potential benefit for a given patient in light of the effort being expended to take care of all their other issues and chronic health problems. If the clinician does bring it up to the patient, there may be barriers in terms of additional medication burden, cost, or acquisition issues,” said Dr. Robinson.

The answer may be better evidence and a more personalized approach. Clinical trials that explore defined patient populations could convince patients of a benefit, and payers to reimburse, according to Dr. Robinson.
 

Changing guidance

Another complication is that both the guidelines and the field are rapidly changing. The 2013 AHA guidelines did not include a treatment to goal and focused instead on use of high-dose statins. But the 2018 update reversed course after randomized studies demonstrated a benefit to treating to target. The researchers found no increase in the frequency of treating to target after the release of the 2018 guidelines. “Publication and announcement of guidelines doesn’t mean that people are getting treated better. We really have to implement them,” said Dr. Cannon.

On a positive note, the GOULD researchers found high acceptance of the new proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors, with over 90% of patients continuing those medications after 2 years. “That’s nice and high. If people do get onto the very intensive lipid-lowing therapies, they tend to stay on them,” said Dr. Cannon.
 

What’s next

Still, the lack of intensification is concerning, and the findings led to some consternation in Twitter exchanges, said Dr. Cannon. “People posted ‘Well, what do we do now?’ ” Dr. Cannon’s team is addressing the issue with an algorithm-based risk management program with prospective enrollment. They have conducted educational webinars and provided site-specific reports on LDL status among patients at each center compared to others, and hope that information will improve compliance. In 2020, the group published an interim analysis of the first 5,000 enrollees, and Dr. Cannon expects to finish that study by the end of the year.

Dr. Navar agreed that physicians need to do a better job of testing LDL-C levels after treatment to identify patients who require more aggressive therapy. That can be deferred in some primary prevention patients with high LDL-C but normal particle numbers as measured with ApoB. “But in those at high risk for disease and those with established CVD who are not at goal, as long as they don’t have a life-limiting condition, we should always up-titrate therapy. It’s one of the safest, most effective ways to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Navar.

Key study results

The prospective study included 5,006 patients at 119 centers with a mean age of 68 years. About 40% were women, and 86.1% were White. All had ASCVD and LDL levels of at least 70 mg/dL. After 2 years, 17% had undergone intensification of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Among patients with LDL-C levels ≥ 100 mg/dL, 22% underwent LLT intensification, compared with 14% of patients with LDL-C levels of 70-99 mg/dL.

The vast majority, 92%, of patients who underwent LLT via addition of PCSK9 inhibitors were still taking the drug after 2 years.

Three-quarters (3,768) had lipid level measurements at least once during follow-up, and median LDL-C levels dropped from 120 to 95 mg/dL in the ≥100-mg/dL cohort (P < .001), and from 82 to 77 mg/dL in the 70- to 99-mg/dL cohort (P <. 001). There was no significant difference in the median values in the patients on PCSK9 inhibitors.

In all, 21% of the ≥100-mg/dL cohort achieved LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL at 2 years, versus 34% in the 77- to 99-mg/dL cohort and 52% of patients taking PCSK9 inhibitors.

Patients seen at teaching hospitals were more likely to undergo LLT intensification compared to nonteaching hospitals (25% versus 17%; P < .001), as were those where lipid protocols were in place (22% versus 15%; P < .001), and those treated in cardiology (22%) compared to treatment in internal or family medicine (12%; P <.001). The study was published online June 16 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Cannon, Dr. Navar, and Dr. Robinson disclosed ties with Amgen, which funded the study, and other companies.

Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), 2 years after release of treat-to-target guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society, most patients with LDL cholesterol higher than 70 mg/dL did not receive intensification of therapy, and two-thirds continued to have LDL levels above that level, according to a prospective registry study.

Both guidelines recommend driving LDL-C levels to 50% or below of baseline levels; results from the Getting to an Improved Understanding of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management (GOULD) registry suggest this is rarely achieved. “Unfortunately it’s not a total surprise, but it’s disappointing,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, the study’s lead author.

“Therapeutic inertia seems to be the rule in clinical practice,” said Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Robinson is professor epidemiology and cardiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Patients hesitant

Changes in practice following guidelines can often be slow, but in this case may have been complicated by the fact that statins have a reputation for causing side effects, so some patients may be refusing treatment based on what they’ve seen on the Internet. Even though the study looked at all lipid-lowering agents, the misinformation around statins may be spilling over, according to Dr. Cannon. “There’s in general so much misinformation around COVID and every other topic in the world. That makes people question what is real [about] anything,” said Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Patient characteristics may partly explain slow uptake. “Clinicians may not think further LDL-C lowering is a high enough priority in terms of potential benefit for a given patient in light of the effort being expended to take care of all their other issues and chronic health problems. If the clinician does bring it up to the patient, there may be barriers in terms of additional medication burden, cost, or acquisition issues,” said Dr. Robinson.

The answer may be better evidence and a more personalized approach. Clinical trials that explore defined patient populations could convince patients of a benefit, and payers to reimburse, according to Dr. Robinson.
 

Changing guidance

Another complication is that both the guidelines and the field are rapidly changing. The 2013 AHA guidelines did not include a treatment to goal and focused instead on use of high-dose statins. But the 2018 update reversed course after randomized studies demonstrated a benefit to treating to target. The researchers found no increase in the frequency of treating to target after the release of the 2018 guidelines. “Publication and announcement of guidelines doesn’t mean that people are getting treated better. We really have to implement them,” said Dr. Cannon.

On a positive note, the GOULD researchers found high acceptance of the new proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors, with over 90% of patients continuing those medications after 2 years. “That’s nice and high. If people do get onto the very intensive lipid-lowing therapies, they tend to stay on them,” said Dr. Cannon.
 

What’s next

Still, the lack of intensification is concerning, and the findings led to some consternation in Twitter exchanges, said Dr. Cannon. “People posted ‘Well, what do we do now?’ ” Dr. Cannon’s team is addressing the issue with an algorithm-based risk management program with prospective enrollment. They have conducted educational webinars and provided site-specific reports on LDL status among patients at each center compared to others, and hope that information will improve compliance. In 2020, the group published an interim analysis of the first 5,000 enrollees, and Dr. Cannon expects to finish that study by the end of the year.

Dr. Navar agreed that physicians need to do a better job of testing LDL-C levels after treatment to identify patients who require more aggressive therapy. That can be deferred in some primary prevention patients with high LDL-C but normal particle numbers as measured with ApoB. “But in those at high risk for disease and those with established CVD who are not at goal, as long as they don’t have a life-limiting condition, we should always up-titrate therapy. It’s one of the safest, most effective ways to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Navar.

Key study results

The prospective study included 5,006 patients at 119 centers with a mean age of 68 years. About 40% were women, and 86.1% were White. All had ASCVD and LDL levels of at least 70 mg/dL. After 2 years, 17% had undergone intensification of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Among patients with LDL-C levels ≥ 100 mg/dL, 22% underwent LLT intensification, compared with 14% of patients with LDL-C levels of 70-99 mg/dL.

The vast majority, 92%, of patients who underwent LLT via addition of PCSK9 inhibitors were still taking the drug after 2 years.

Three-quarters (3,768) had lipid level measurements at least once during follow-up, and median LDL-C levels dropped from 120 to 95 mg/dL in the ≥100-mg/dL cohort (P < .001), and from 82 to 77 mg/dL in the 70- to 99-mg/dL cohort (P <. 001). There was no significant difference in the median values in the patients on PCSK9 inhibitors.

In all, 21% of the ≥100-mg/dL cohort achieved LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL at 2 years, versus 34% in the 77- to 99-mg/dL cohort and 52% of patients taking PCSK9 inhibitors.

Patients seen at teaching hospitals were more likely to undergo LLT intensification compared to nonteaching hospitals (25% versus 17%; P < .001), as were those where lipid protocols were in place (22% versus 15%; P < .001), and those treated in cardiology (22%) compared to treatment in internal or family medicine (12%; P <.001). The study was published online June 16 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Cannon, Dr. Navar, and Dr. Robinson disclosed ties with Amgen, which funded the study, and other companies.

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery had a lower risk of having a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) or dying from all causes during a median 7-year follow-up, compared with similar patients who did not undergo surgery.

These findings, from a province-wide retrospective cohort study from Quebec, follow two recent, slightly shorter similar trials.

Now we need a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), experts say, to definitively establish cardiovascular and mortality benefits in people with obesity who have metabolic/bariatric surgery. And such a trial is just beginning.

Philippe Bouchard, MD, a general surgery resident from McGill University in Montreal presented the Quebec study in a top papers session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings showed that, among obese patients with metabolic syndrome, bariatric/metabolic surgery is associated with a sustained decrease in the incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality of at least 5 years, Dr. Bouchard said.

“The results of this population-based observational study should be validated in randomized controlled trials,” he concluded.

In the meantime, “we believe our study adds to the body of evidence in mainly two ways,” Dr. Bouchard told this news organization in an email.

It has a longer follow-up than recent observational studies, “a median of 7 years, compared to 3.9 years in a study from the Cleveland Clinic, and 4.6 years in one from Ontario, he said.

“This allows us to [estimate] an absolute risk reduction of MACE of 5.11% at 10 years,” he added. This is a smaller risk reduction than the roughly 40% risk reduction seen in the other two studies, possibly because of selection bias, Dr. Bouchard speculated.

“Second, most of the larger cohorts are heavily weighted on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass,” he continued. In contrast, their study included diverse procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding.

“Given the rise in popularity of a derivative of the duodenal switch – the single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADi-S) – we believe this information is timely and relevant to clinicians,” Dr. Bouchard said.
 

RCT on the subject is coming

“I totally agree that we need a large randomized controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus optimal medical therapy to conclusively establish” the impact of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular outcomes, said the assigned discussant, Mehran Anvari, MD. And their research group is just about to begin one.

In the absence of RCT data, clinicians “may currently not refer [eligible] patients for bariatric surgery because of the high risk they pose,” said Dr. Anvari, professor and director of the Centre for Minimal Access Surgery of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and senior author in the Ontario study.

Furthermore, an important point is that the current trial extended the follow-up to 7 years, he told this news organization in an email.

That study included patients with diabetes and hypertension, he added, whereas his group included patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and/or heart failure.

“We hope these studies encourage general practitioners and cardiologists to consider bariatric surgery as a viable treatment option to prevent and reduce the risk of MACE in the obese patients [body mass index >35 kg/m²] with significant cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“We have embarked on a pilot RCT among bariatric centers of excellence in Ontario,” Dr. Anvari added, which showed the feasibility and safety of such a study.

He estimates that the RCT will need to recruit 2,000 patients to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in reducing MACE and cardiac and all-cause mortality among patients with existing cardiovascular disease.

This “will require international collaboration,” he added, “and our group is currently establishing collaboration with sites in North America, Europe, and Australia to conduct such a study.”
 

Patients matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities

Quebec has a single public health care system that covers the cost of bariatric surgery for eligible patients; that is, those with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

Using this provincial health care database, which covers over 97% of the population, the researchers identified 3,637 patients with diabetes and/or hypertension who had bariatric surgery during 2007-2012.

They matched the surgery patients with 5,420 control patients with obesity who lived in the same geographic region and had a similar age, sex, and number of Charlson Comorbidity Index comorbidities, but did not undergo bariatric surgery.

The patients had a mean age of 50 and 64% were women.

Half had zero to one comorbidities, a quarter had two comorbidities, and another quarter had at least three comorbidities.

Most patients in the surgery group had type 2 diabetes (70%) and 50% had hypertension, whereas in the control group, most patients had hypertension (82%) and 41% had diabetes.

The most common type of bariatric surgery was adjustable gastric banding (42% of patients), followed by duodenal switch (24%), sleeve gastrectomy (23%), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (11%).

The primary outcome was the incidence of MACE, defined as coronary artery events (including myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft), stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality,

After a median follow-up of 7-11 years, fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had MACE (20% vs. 25%) or died from all causes (4.1% vs. 6.3%, both statistically significant at P < .01)

Similarly, significantly fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had a coronary artery event or heart failure (each P < .01).

However, there were no significant between-group difference in the rate of stroke, possibly because of the small number of strokes.

The risk of MACE was 17% lower in the group that had bariatric surgery than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.89), after adjusting for age, sex, and number of comorbidities.

In subgroup analysis, patients who had adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch had a significantly lower risk of MACE than control patients.

The risk of MACE was similar in patients who had sleeve gastrectomy and in control patients.

However, these subgroup results need to be interpreted with caution since the surgery and control patients in each surgery type subgroup were not matched for age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Bouchard.

He acknowledged that study limitations include a lack of information about the patients’ BMI, weight, medications, and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c).

Dr. Bouchard and Dr. Anvari have no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery had a lower risk of having a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) or dying from all causes during a median 7-year follow-up, compared with similar patients who did not undergo surgery.

These findings, from a province-wide retrospective cohort study from Quebec, follow two recent, slightly shorter similar trials.

Now we need a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), experts say, to definitively establish cardiovascular and mortality benefits in people with obesity who have metabolic/bariatric surgery. And such a trial is just beginning.

Philippe Bouchard, MD, a general surgery resident from McGill University in Montreal presented the Quebec study in a top papers session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings showed that, among obese patients with metabolic syndrome, bariatric/metabolic surgery is associated with a sustained decrease in the incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality of at least 5 years, Dr. Bouchard said.

“The results of this population-based observational study should be validated in randomized controlled trials,” he concluded.

In the meantime, “we believe our study adds to the body of evidence in mainly two ways,” Dr. Bouchard told this news organization in an email.

It has a longer follow-up than recent observational studies, “a median of 7 years, compared to 3.9 years in a study from the Cleveland Clinic, and 4.6 years in one from Ontario, he said.

“This allows us to [estimate] an absolute risk reduction of MACE of 5.11% at 10 years,” he added. This is a smaller risk reduction than the roughly 40% risk reduction seen in the other two studies, possibly because of selection bias, Dr. Bouchard speculated.

“Second, most of the larger cohorts are heavily weighted on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass,” he continued. In contrast, their study included diverse procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding.

“Given the rise in popularity of a derivative of the duodenal switch – the single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADi-S) – we believe this information is timely and relevant to clinicians,” Dr. Bouchard said.
 

RCT on the subject is coming

“I totally agree that we need a large randomized controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus optimal medical therapy to conclusively establish” the impact of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular outcomes, said the assigned discussant, Mehran Anvari, MD. And their research group is just about to begin one.

In the absence of RCT data, clinicians “may currently not refer [eligible] patients for bariatric surgery because of the high risk they pose,” said Dr. Anvari, professor and director of the Centre for Minimal Access Surgery of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and senior author in the Ontario study.

Furthermore, an important point is that the current trial extended the follow-up to 7 years, he told this news organization in an email.

That study included patients with diabetes and hypertension, he added, whereas his group included patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and/or heart failure.

“We hope these studies encourage general practitioners and cardiologists to consider bariatric surgery as a viable treatment option to prevent and reduce the risk of MACE in the obese patients [body mass index >35 kg/m²] with significant cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“We have embarked on a pilot RCT among bariatric centers of excellence in Ontario,” Dr. Anvari added, which showed the feasibility and safety of such a study.

He estimates that the RCT will need to recruit 2,000 patients to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in reducing MACE and cardiac and all-cause mortality among patients with existing cardiovascular disease.

This “will require international collaboration,” he added, “and our group is currently establishing collaboration with sites in North America, Europe, and Australia to conduct such a study.”
 

Patients matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities

Quebec has a single public health care system that covers the cost of bariatric surgery for eligible patients; that is, those with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

Using this provincial health care database, which covers over 97% of the population, the researchers identified 3,637 patients with diabetes and/or hypertension who had bariatric surgery during 2007-2012.

They matched the surgery patients with 5,420 control patients with obesity who lived in the same geographic region and had a similar age, sex, and number of Charlson Comorbidity Index comorbidities, but did not undergo bariatric surgery.

The patients had a mean age of 50 and 64% were women.

Half had zero to one comorbidities, a quarter had two comorbidities, and another quarter had at least three comorbidities.

Most patients in the surgery group had type 2 diabetes (70%) and 50% had hypertension, whereas in the control group, most patients had hypertension (82%) and 41% had diabetes.

The most common type of bariatric surgery was adjustable gastric banding (42% of patients), followed by duodenal switch (24%), sleeve gastrectomy (23%), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (11%).

The primary outcome was the incidence of MACE, defined as coronary artery events (including myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft), stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality,

After a median follow-up of 7-11 years, fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had MACE (20% vs. 25%) or died from all causes (4.1% vs. 6.3%, both statistically significant at P < .01)

Similarly, significantly fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had a coronary artery event or heart failure (each P < .01).

However, there were no significant between-group difference in the rate of stroke, possibly because of the small number of strokes.

The risk of MACE was 17% lower in the group that had bariatric surgery than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.89), after adjusting for age, sex, and number of comorbidities.

In subgroup analysis, patients who had adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch had a significantly lower risk of MACE than control patients.

The risk of MACE was similar in patients who had sleeve gastrectomy and in control patients.

However, these subgroup results need to be interpreted with caution since the surgery and control patients in each surgery type subgroup were not matched for age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Bouchard.

He acknowledged that study limitations include a lack of information about the patients’ BMI, weight, medications, and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c).

Dr. Bouchard and Dr. Anvari have no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery had a lower risk of having a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) or dying from all causes during a median 7-year follow-up, compared with similar patients who did not undergo surgery.

These findings, from a province-wide retrospective cohort study from Quebec, follow two recent, slightly shorter similar trials.

Now we need a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), experts say, to definitively establish cardiovascular and mortality benefits in people with obesity who have metabolic/bariatric surgery. And such a trial is just beginning.

Philippe Bouchard, MD, a general surgery resident from McGill University in Montreal presented the Quebec study in a top papers session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings showed that, among obese patients with metabolic syndrome, bariatric/metabolic surgery is associated with a sustained decrease in the incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality of at least 5 years, Dr. Bouchard said.

“The results of this population-based observational study should be validated in randomized controlled trials,” he concluded.

In the meantime, “we believe our study adds to the body of evidence in mainly two ways,” Dr. Bouchard told this news organization in an email.

It has a longer follow-up than recent observational studies, “a median of 7 years, compared to 3.9 years in a study from the Cleveland Clinic, and 4.6 years in one from Ontario, he said.

“This allows us to [estimate] an absolute risk reduction of MACE of 5.11% at 10 years,” he added. This is a smaller risk reduction than the roughly 40% risk reduction seen in the other two studies, possibly because of selection bias, Dr. Bouchard speculated.

“Second, most of the larger cohorts are heavily weighted on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass,” he continued. In contrast, their study included diverse procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding.

“Given the rise in popularity of a derivative of the duodenal switch – the single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADi-S) – we believe this information is timely and relevant to clinicians,” Dr. Bouchard said.
 

RCT on the subject is coming

“I totally agree that we need a large randomized controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus optimal medical therapy to conclusively establish” the impact of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular outcomes, said the assigned discussant, Mehran Anvari, MD. And their research group is just about to begin one.

In the absence of RCT data, clinicians “may currently not refer [eligible] patients for bariatric surgery because of the high risk they pose,” said Dr. Anvari, professor and director of the Centre for Minimal Access Surgery of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and senior author in the Ontario study.

Furthermore, an important point is that the current trial extended the follow-up to 7 years, he told this news organization in an email.

That study included patients with diabetes and hypertension, he added, whereas his group included patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and/or heart failure.

“We hope these studies encourage general practitioners and cardiologists to consider bariatric surgery as a viable treatment option to prevent and reduce the risk of MACE in the obese patients [body mass index >35 kg/m²] with significant cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“We have embarked on a pilot RCT among bariatric centers of excellence in Ontario,” Dr. Anvari added, which showed the feasibility and safety of such a study.

He estimates that the RCT will need to recruit 2,000 patients to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in reducing MACE and cardiac and all-cause mortality among patients with existing cardiovascular disease.

This “will require international collaboration,” he added, “and our group is currently establishing collaboration with sites in North America, Europe, and Australia to conduct such a study.”
 

Patients matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities

Quebec has a single public health care system that covers the cost of bariatric surgery for eligible patients; that is, those with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

Using this provincial health care database, which covers over 97% of the population, the researchers identified 3,637 patients with diabetes and/or hypertension who had bariatric surgery during 2007-2012.

They matched the surgery patients with 5,420 control patients with obesity who lived in the same geographic region and had a similar age, sex, and number of Charlson Comorbidity Index comorbidities, but did not undergo bariatric surgery.

The patients had a mean age of 50 and 64% were women.

Half had zero to one comorbidities, a quarter had two comorbidities, and another quarter had at least three comorbidities.

Most patients in the surgery group had type 2 diabetes (70%) and 50% had hypertension, whereas in the control group, most patients had hypertension (82%) and 41% had diabetes.

The most common type of bariatric surgery was adjustable gastric banding (42% of patients), followed by duodenal switch (24%), sleeve gastrectomy (23%), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (11%).

The primary outcome was the incidence of MACE, defined as coronary artery events (including myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft), stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality,

After a median follow-up of 7-11 years, fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had MACE (20% vs. 25%) or died from all causes (4.1% vs. 6.3%, both statistically significant at P < .01)

Similarly, significantly fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had a coronary artery event or heart failure (each P < .01).

However, there were no significant between-group difference in the rate of stroke, possibly because of the small number of strokes.

The risk of MACE was 17% lower in the group that had bariatric surgery than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.89), after adjusting for age, sex, and number of comorbidities.

In subgroup analysis, patients who had adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch had a significantly lower risk of MACE than control patients.

The risk of MACE was similar in patients who had sleeve gastrectomy and in control patients.

However, these subgroup results need to be interpreted with caution since the surgery and control patients in each surgery type subgroup were not matched for age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Bouchard.

He acknowledged that study limitations include a lack of information about the patients’ BMI, weight, medications, and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c).

Dr. Bouchard and Dr. Anvari have no relevant financial disclosures.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A patient’s risk for ischemic events, but not bleeding, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can be predicted simply based on whether they have one or more guideline-based standardized risk criteria, a large-scale real-world analysis suggests.

Haoyu Wang, MD, and colleagues showed that having at least one high-risk feature, as outlined in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization, was associated with an increased risk for target vessel failure by 48% and for a patient-oriented composite outcome by 44%.

Moreover, they showed that implantation of at least three stents and the presence of diabetes and diffuse multivessel disease were the only high-risk features from the guidelines that were independent predictors of the two outcomes.

The study of more than 10,000 PCI patients also showed that determining whether patients were at high bleeding risk (HBR) did not modify their ischemic risk.

This, said Dr. Wang, from the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, underscores the importance of applying the high ischemic risk (HIR) criteria from the ESC/EACTS guidelines when tailoring dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).

The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2021 Virtual Congress on June 2, and published online in the Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis.

Dr. Wang told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology that they conducted the study to determine which – HIR or HBR – is “most important to balance when treating patients undergoing PCI and then having dual antiplatelet therapy.”

The results showed that when patients have both a HIR and HBR, it is the ESC/EACTS guideline HIR criteria that have “a higher impact” than the bleeding risk, and that this can be “used to guide our choice of the duration of dual anti-platelet therapy.”

“Maybe we can extend, or use more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors” in those situations, he said.

S. Lale Tokgözoglu, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey, who was not involved in the study, said the HIR assessment “performed well,” adding that the HBR score might have been expected to attenuate its “prognostic advantage.”

She told this news organization that the results “are interesting since previous observations have suggested that Asian patients may be more prone to medication side effects and bleeding.”

These findings emphasize the importance of assessing HIR in daily PCI practice and confirm that it “performs well in different populations in real life,” added Dr. Tokgözoglu, a former president of the EAS.

The ESC/EACTS guidelines aimed to standardize the definition of HIR, Dr. Wang said during the presentation.

They set out 10 high-risk features for ischemic events for patients undergoing revascularization, which included patient medical history, comorbid conditions, and the characteristics of the PCI procedure.

Although the goals of the criteria are to inform decision-making and stimulate research, Dr. Wang said that their “prevalence and prognostic association with clinical outcomes are yet to be established in real-world PCI practice.”

Alongside, the Predicting Bleeding Complication in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score was developed to predict out-of-hospital bleeding in patients receiving DAPT after stent implantation.

Although a PRECISE-DAPT score of at least 25 constitutes a patient at high bleeding risk, Dr. Wang pointed out that such patients are typically also at risk for ischemic events after PCI, and it is “unclear” whether being at HBR modifies this risk.

To investigate further, they used the prospective, real-world Fuwai PCI registry to collate an all-comer patient population with unselected use of drug-eluting stents at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases at Fuwai Hospital.

They excluded individuals who were treated with balloon angioplasty alone, bioresorbable scaffolds, or bare metal stents, leaving a total population of 10,167 patients who were treated in 2013.

In that cohort, 5,149 patients (50.6%) met at least one risk criterion from the ESC/EACTS guidelines (HIR patients) and 5,018 (49.4%) met none of the risk criteria (non-HIR patients).

The most common criteria were implantation of at least three stents (23.5%); total stent length greater than 60 mm (20.2%); diffuse multivessel disease, especially in diabetic patients (18.5%); and a history of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (13.9%).

HIR patients were significantly older than non-HIR patients (average age, 58.86 vs. 57.77 years; P < .001), were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (42.6% vs. 16.9%; P < .001); and were more likely to have already had a myocardial infarction (32.2% vs. 5.2%; P < .001).

HIR patients also had higher average PRECISE-ADAPT scores than those without HIR (11.22 vs. 9.94; P < .001), and were conversely less likely to have the left anterior descending artery as the target vessel than non-HIR patients (86.0% vs. 94.6%; P < .001).

Cox regression analysis taking into account a range of patient and clinical factors revealed that HIR patients were significantly more likely than their non-HIR counterparts to experience target vessel failure (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.74; P < .001).

They were also significantly more likely to have a patient-oriented composite outcome, defined as all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.63; P < .001).

There was also a significantly higher risk for cardiac death in HIR than in non-HIR patients (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.16-3.29; P = .012).

However, there was no significant association between HIR status and clinically relevant bleeding (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06; P = .143).

When the researchers looked at individual ischemic risk features, they found that, on fully adjusted analyses, only two were independent predictors of target vessel failure and the patient-oriented composite outcome.

Having at least three stents implanted was significantly associated with target vessel failure (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.80; P = .038), and borderline significantly associated with the patient oriented composite outcome (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53; P = .056).

Diffuse multivessel disease, especially in diabetic patients, was significantly associated with both target vessel failure (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51; P = .035) and with the patient-oriented composite outcome (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39; P = .012).

Neither risk feature was significantly associated with clinically relevant bleeding, Dr. Wang noted.

Stratifying the patients by HBR status, the team found that rates of target vessel failure, the patient-oriented composite outcome, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and definite/probable stent thrombosis were higher in patients with both HIR and HBR than those with neither HIR nor HBR (P < .001).

Further stratifying patients by PRECISE-ADAPT scores – 10 or less indicating very low risk, 11-17 indicating low risk, 18-24 indicating moderate risk, and at least 25 indicating high risk – showed that HIR features had a consistent effect on ischemic and bleeding outcomes, regardless of bleeding risk.

No funding declared. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

A patient’s risk for ischemic events, but not bleeding, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can be predicted simply based on whether they have one or more guideline-based standardized risk criteria, a large-scale real-world analysis suggests.

Haoyu Wang, MD, and colleagues showed that having at least one high-risk feature, as outlined in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization, was associated with an increased risk for target vessel failure by 48% and for a patient-oriented composite outcome by 44%.

Moreover, they showed that implantation of at least three stents and the presence of diabetes and diffuse multivessel disease were the only high-risk features from the guidelines that were independent predictors of the two outcomes.

The study of more than 10,000 PCI patients also showed that determining whether patients were at high bleeding risk (HBR) did not modify their ischemic risk.

This, said Dr. Wang, from the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, underscores the importance of applying the high ischemic risk (HIR) criteria from the ESC/EACTS guidelines when tailoring dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).

The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2021 Virtual Congress on June 2, and published online in the Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis.

Dr. Wang told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology that they conducted the study to determine which – HIR or HBR – is “most important to balance when treating patients undergoing PCI and then having dual antiplatelet therapy.”

The results showed that when patients have both a HIR and HBR, it is the ESC/EACTS guideline HIR criteria that have “a higher impact” than the bleeding risk, and that this can be “used to guide our choice of the duration of dual anti-platelet therapy.”

“Maybe we can extend, or use more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors” in those situations, he said.

S. Lale Tokgözoglu, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey, who was not involved in the study, said the HIR assessment “performed well,” adding that the HBR score might have been expected to attenuate its “prognostic advantage.”

She told this news organization that the results “are interesting since previous observations have suggested that Asian patients may be more prone to medication side effects and bleeding.”

These findings emphasize the importance of assessing HIR in daily PCI practice and confirm that it “performs well in different populations in real life,” added Dr. Tokgözoglu, a former president of the EAS.

The ESC/EACTS guidelines aimed to standardize the definition of HIR, Dr. Wang said during the presentation.

They set out 10 high-risk features for ischemic events for patients undergoing revascularization, which included patient medical history, comorbid conditions, and the characteristics of the PCI procedure.

Although the goals of the criteria are to inform decision-making and stimulate research, Dr. Wang said that their “prevalence and prognostic association with clinical outcomes are yet to be established in real-world PCI practice.”

Alongside, the Predicting Bleeding Complication in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score was developed to predict out-of-hospital bleeding in patients receiving DAPT after stent implantation.

Although a PRECISE-DAPT score of at least 25 constitutes a patient at high bleeding risk, Dr. Wang pointed out that such patients are typically also at risk for ischemic events after PCI, and it is “unclear” whether being at HBR modifies this risk.

To investigate further, they used the prospective, real-world Fuwai PCI registry to collate an all-comer patient population with unselected use of drug-eluting stents at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases at Fuwai Hospital.

They excluded individuals who were treated with balloon angioplasty alone, bioresorbable scaffolds, or bare metal stents, leaving a total population of 10,167 patients who were treated in 2013.

In that cohort, 5,149 patients (50.6%) met at least one risk criterion from the ESC/EACTS guidelines (HIR patients) and 5,018 (49.4%) met none of the risk criteria (non-HIR patients).

The most common criteria were implantation of at least three stents (23.5%); total stent length greater than 60 mm (20.2%); diffuse multivessel disease, especially in diabetic patients (18.5%); and a history of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (13.9%).

HIR patients were significantly older than non-HIR patients (average age, 58.86 vs. 57.77 years; P < .001), were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (42.6% vs. 16.9%; P < .001); and were more likely to have already had a myocardial infarction (32.2% vs. 5.2%; P < .001).

HIR patients also had higher average PRECISE-ADAPT scores than those without HIR (11.22 vs. 9.94; P < .001), and were conversely less likely to have the left anterior descending artery as the target vessel than non-HIR patients (86.0% vs. 94.6%; P < .001).

Cox regression analysis taking into account a range of patient and clinical factors revealed that HIR patients were significantly more likely than their non-HIR counterparts to experience target vessel failure (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.74; P < .001).

They were also significantly more likely to have a patient-oriented composite outcome, defined as all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.63; P < .001).

There was also a significantly higher risk for cardiac death in HIR than in non-HIR patients (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.16-3.29; P = .012).

However, there was no significant association between HIR status and clinically relevant bleeding (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06; P = .143).

When the researchers looked at individual ischemic risk features, they found that, on fully adjusted analyses, only two were independent predictors of target vessel failure and the patient-oriented composite outcome.

Having at least three stents implanted was significantly associated with target vessel failure (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.80; P = .038), and borderline significantly associated with the patient oriented composite outcome (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53; P = .056).

Diffuse multivessel disease, especially in diabetic patients, was significantly associated with both target vessel failure (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51; P = .035) and with the patient-oriented composite outcome (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39; P = .012).

Neither risk feature was significantly associated with clinically relevant bleeding, Dr. Wang noted.

Stratifying the patients by HBR status, the team found that rates of target vessel failure, the patient-oriented composite outcome, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and definite/probable stent thrombosis were higher in patients with both HIR and HBR than those with neither HIR nor HBR (P < .001).

Further stratifying patients by PRECISE-ADAPT scores – 10 or less indicating very low risk, 11-17 indicating low risk, 18-24 indicating moderate risk, and at least 25 indicating high risk – showed that HIR features had a consistent effect on ischemic and bleeding outcomes, regardless of bleeding risk.

No funding declared. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

A patient’s risk for ischemic events, but not bleeding, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can be predicted simply based on whether they have one or more guideline-based standardized risk criteria, a large-scale real-world analysis suggests.

Haoyu Wang, MD, and colleagues showed that having at least one high-risk feature, as outlined in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization, was associated with an increased risk for target vessel failure by 48% and for a patient-oriented composite outcome by 44%.

Moreover, they showed that implantation of at least three stents and the presence of diabetes and diffuse multivessel disease were the only high-risk features from the guidelines that were independent predictors of the two outcomes.

The study of more than 10,000 PCI patients also showed that determining whether patients were at high bleeding risk (HBR) did not modify their ischemic risk.

This, said Dr. Wang, from the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, underscores the importance of applying the high ischemic risk (HIR) criteria from the ESC/EACTS guidelines when tailoring dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).

The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2021 Virtual Congress on June 2, and published online in the Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis.

Dr. Wang told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology that they conducted the study to determine which – HIR or HBR – is “most important to balance when treating patients undergoing PCI and then having dual antiplatelet therapy.”

The results showed that when patients have both a HIR and HBR, it is the ESC/EACTS guideline HIR criteria that have “a higher impact” than the bleeding risk, and that this can be “used to guide our choice of the duration of dual anti-platelet therapy.”

“Maybe we can extend, or use more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors” in those situations, he said.

S. Lale Tokgözoglu, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey, who was not involved in the study, said the HIR assessment “performed well,” adding that the HBR score might have been expected to attenuate its “prognostic advantage.”

She told this news organization that the results “are interesting since previous observations have suggested that Asian patients may be more prone to medication side effects and bleeding.”

These findings emphasize the importance of assessing HIR in daily PCI practice and confirm that it “performs well in different populations in real life,” added Dr. Tokgözoglu, a former president of the EAS.

The ESC/EACTS guidelines aimed to standardize the definition of HIR, Dr. Wang said during the presentation.

They set out 10 high-risk features for ischemic events for patients undergoing revascularization, which included patient medical history, comorbid conditions, and the characteristics of the PCI procedure.

Although the goals of the criteria are to inform decision-making and stimulate research, Dr. Wang said that their “prevalence and prognostic association with clinical outcomes are yet to be established in real-world PCI practice.”

Alongside, the Predicting Bleeding Complication in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score was developed to predict out-of-hospital bleeding in patients receiving DAPT after stent implantation.

Although a PRECISE-DAPT score of at least 25 constitutes a patient at high bleeding risk, Dr. Wang pointed out that such patients are typically also at risk for ischemic events after PCI, and it is “unclear” whether being at HBR modifies this risk.

To investigate further, they used the prospective, real-world Fuwai PCI registry to collate an all-comer patient population with unselected use of drug-eluting stents at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases at Fuwai Hospital.

They excluded individuals who were treated with balloon angioplasty alone, bioresorbable scaffolds, or bare metal stents, leaving a total population of 10,167 patients who were treated in 2013.

In that cohort, 5,149 patients (50.6%) met at least one risk criterion from the ESC/EACTS guidelines (HIR patients) and 5,018 (49.4%) met none of the risk criteria (non-HIR patients).

The most common criteria were implantation of at least three stents (23.5%); total stent length greater than 60 mm (20.2%); diffuse multivessel disease, especially in diabetic patients (18.5%); and a history of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (13.9%).

HIR patients were significantly older than non-HIR patients (average age, 58.86 vs. 57.77 years; P < .001), were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (42.6% vs. 16.9%; P < .001); and were more likely to have already had a myocardial infarction (32.2% vs. 5.2%; P < .001).

HIR patients also had higher average PRECISE-ADAPT scores than those without HIR (11.22 vs. 9.94; P < .001), and were conversely less likely to have the left anterior descending artery as the target vessel than non-HIR patients (86.0% vs. 94.6%; P < .001).

Cox regression analysis taking into account a range of patient and clinical factors revealed that HIR patients were significantly more likely than their non-HIR counterparts to experience target vessel failure (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.74; P < .001).

They were also significantly more likely to have a patient-oriented composite outcome, defined as all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.63; P < .001).

There was also a significantly higher risk for cardiac death in HIR than in non-HIR patients (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.16-3.29; P = .012).

However, there was no significant association between HIR status and clinically relevant bleeding (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06; P = .143).

When the researchers looked at individual ischemic risk features, they found that, on fully adjusted analyses, only two were independent predictors of target vessel failure and the patient-oriented composite outcome.

Having at least three stents implanted was significantly associated with target vessel failure (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.80; P = .038), and borderline significantly associated with the patient oriented composite outcome (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53; P = .056).

Diffuse multivessel disease, especially in diabetic patients, was significantly associated with both target vessel failure (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51; P = .035) and with the patient-oriented composite outcome (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39; P = .012).

Neither risk feature was significantly associated with clinically relevant bleeding, Dr. Wang noted.

Stratifying the patients by HBR status, the team found that rates of target vessel failure, the patient-oriented composite outcome, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and definite/probable stent thrombosis were higher in patients with both HIR and HBR than those with neither HIR nor HBR (P < .001).

Further stratifying patients by PRECISE-ADAPT scores – 10 or less indicating very low risk, 11-17 indicating low risk, 18-24 indicating moderate risk, and at least 25 indicating high risk – showed that HIR features had a consistent effect on ischemic and bleeding outcomes, regardless of bleeding risk.

No funding declared. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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