Cardiology

Click here to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2025.

Click here to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2025.

Click here to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2025.

Statins are widely used to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).¹ However, despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, many patients may not reach their LDL and non-HDL goals. Some patients may experience adverse events (AEs), particularly muscle-related AEs, which can limit the use of these medications.

The 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC) expert consensus pathway recommends a goal LDL of < 55 mg/dL in very high-risk patients, defined as those with a history of multiple major ASCVD events or 1 major ASCVD event and multiple high-risk conditions.² Major ASCVD events include acute coronary syndrome within 12 months, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (ie, claudication with ankle-brachial index < 0.85 or previous revascularization or amputation). Factors for being considered high risk include age > 65 years, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of prior coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention outside the major ASCVD events, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m²), current smoking, persistently elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy and ezetimibe, and history of congestive heart failure.² For these patients, statin therapy alone may not achieve LDL goal. 

The ACC recommends ezetimibe as the initial nonstatin therapy in patients who are not at their goal LDL.² Ezetimibe works by inhibiting Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 protein, which causes reduced cholesterol absorption in the small intestine.^2,3 Previous studies have shown the benefit of ezetimibe for LDL reduction and ASCVD prevention.^4-7 The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study found the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than simvastatin monotherapy. IMPROVE-IT also reported a further clinical benefit when lower LDL targets (ie, < 55 mg/dL) are achieved, which aligns with the expert consensus pathway recommendations for a lower LDL goal for very high-risk patients.^2,5

The RACING trial found that treatment with a moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was noninferior to treatment with a high-intensity statin for the primary outcome of occurrence of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke within 3 years. The combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe achieved lower LDL-C levels and lower incidence of drug intolerance compared to high intensity statin monotherapy.⁶ The SHARP-CKD study assessed major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD who had no history of MI or coronary revascularization. The study found that lowering LDL-C with the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe safely reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with CKD.⁷

Lastly, the 2019 EWTOPIA 75 study found that ezetimibe noted a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, coronary revascularization, or stroke compared to placebo. Ezetimibe showed benefits in preventing ASCVD events independently of statin therapy.⁸ These clinical trials provided evidence for the efficacy of ezetimibe for secondary or primary prevention of ASCVD, patients with CKD, and patients who are not at their LDL goal despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe are reported to be 15% to 19% for monotherapy and 13% to 25% when used in combination with a statin.⁴ Given that the ACC now recommends lower LDL goals, patients may need additional lowering despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy.² Additionally, the package insert for ezetimibe reports increased area under the curve (AUC) values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease. It is anticipated that ezetimibe may show an increased reduction of LDL and non-HDL, but there may also be an increased risk for muscle-related AEs.³

This quality-assurance quality improvement project investigated the use of ezetimibe in patients with CKD to determine whether there is further LDL and non-HDL reduction in this patient population. It sought to determine the LDL and non-HDL percentage reduction in patients with and without CKD at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) and whether there is an increased risk for muscle-related AEs. Determining the percentage reduction of LDL and non-HDL within this population can help increase use of ezetimibe in patients not at their LDL or non-HDL goal or for those patients unable to tolerate statin therapy.

Methods

This single-center retrospective chart review investigated patients prescribed ezetimibe by a patient aligned care team (PACT) pharmacist at WBVAMC between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023. This project was determined to be nonresearch by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 multisite institutional review board. Patients were excluded from the review if they started taking ezetimibe outside of the prespecified time frame, if ezetimibe was initiated by a non-WBVAMC PACT pharmacist, or if there was no follow-up lipid panel obtained within 6 months of initiation of ezetimibe.

The primary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL reduction and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients without CKD. The secondary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL levels and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients with CKD. For this study, CKD was defined as a patient having an eGFR 15 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m². Non-HDL is the combination of LDL-C and very LDL-C and represents all potentially atherogenic particles. The 2022 Expert Consensus Pathway included non-HDL goals in addition to LDL goals.² Non-HDL cholesterol levels can be used for patients with elevated triglycerides where LDL levels may not be as accurate. To account for instances of elevated triglycerides, this study assessed changes in both LDL and non-HDL levels.

Data were collected from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and recorded in a spreadsheet. Collected data included age, sex, race, concomitant cholesterol-lowering medications (statin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitor, bempedoic acid, fish oil, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and fibrates), baseline lipid panel, lipid panel within 6 months of ezetimibe initiation, and eGFR level. If the patient’s LDL or non-HDL levels worsened on the follow-up lipid panel, their baseline LDL and non-HDL levels were used to calculate the percentage reduction; thus, the percentage reduction would be 0%. This strategy was used in prior research, notably the IMPROVE-IT and SHARP-CKD trials. 

Ezetimibe 5 mg once daily was used in this study based on a 2008 VA study that evaluated the use of ezetimibe 5 mg vs ezetimibe 10 mg and the percentage reduction of LDL with each dose. The study found no significant difference between the 5 mg and 10 mg dose.⁹ Most patients included in this study received the 5 mg dose.

Results

This retrospective chart review consisted of 173 patients, 137 (79.2%) without CKD and 36 (20.8%) with CKD at baseline. The mean age was 69.6 years, 155 (89.6%) patients were male, and 18 (10.4%) were female. There were 164 concomitant medications, including 115 patients prescribed a statin and 38 patients prescribed fish oil (Table 1).

Patients without CKD had mean reductions in LDL levels of 23.5% and non-HDL levels of 21.7% (Figure). Patients who had an increase in LDL and non-HDL levels were excluded to control for potential confounding factors such as dietary changes, discontinuation of ezetimibe therapy, nonadherence to ezetimibe, and medication changes that impacted follow-up laboratory tests such as discontinuation of a statin. Fifteen patients experienced an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels. After excluding these patients, those without CKD had a mean reduction in LDL levels of 28.0% and non-HDL levels of 25.5%. Nineteen (13.9%) patients without CKD experienced a muscle-related AE (Table 2). One patient discontinued ezetimibe and statin use following a Lyme disease diagnosis due to concerns over potential muscle-related AEs. 

Patients with CKD had a mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels of 27.0% and 24.8%, respectively. Patients with an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels were also excluded to help control for potential confounding factors. After excluding 4 patients with increased LDL and non-HDL levels, the mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels was 30.5% and 27.5%, respectively. Five (13.9%) patients with CKD experienced muscle-related AEs thought to be due to ezetimibe. Other AEs (eg, urticaria, diarrhea, reflux, dizziness, headache, upset stomach) were reported that led to discontinuation of ezetimibe, but only muscle-related AEs were analyzed.

Discussion

This retrospective chart review found larger reductions in LDL and non-HDL levels for patients with CKD than reported in the literature.⁴ Based on the findings that indicate a greater cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe, the results suggest an underutilization of ezetimibe in clinical practice, which may be due to clinicians favoring statin therapy and overlooking ezetimibe as a viable option based on recommendation in earlier guidelines. The 2022 guidelines transitioned from a statin focus to a focus on LDL targets and goals.²

According to the ACC, there is evidence to support a direct relationship between LDL-C levels, atherosclerosis progression, and ASCVD event risk.² Absolute LDL-C level reduction is directly associated with ASCVD risk reduction which supports the LDL hypothesis. There appears to be no specific LDL-C level below which benefit ceases.² This suggests that lower LDL-C targets (< 55 mg/dL) should be used when clinically indicated. Many patients are either unable to reach their goal LDL levels with statin monotherapy or are unable to tolerate statin therapy at higher doses, which may require additional pharmacotherapy to reach goal LDL-C. The ACC expert consensus pathway recommends ezetimibe as the initial add-on treatment to statins.² The RACING trial showed the benefit of adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin vs increasing to a high-intensity statin dose. This trial found patients had lower LDL levels and lower rates of intolerances, which further supports ezetimibe use.⁶

This quality improvement project assessed LDL and non-HDL level reduction in patients with CKD. As anticipated, there was greater reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen in patients with CKD. The SHARP-CKD trial also found reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with CKD.⁷ Given the reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with or without CKD, add-on therapy of ezetimibe should be recommended for patients who do not achieve their LDL goals with statin therapy or for patients who intolerant to statin therapy. 

The ezetimibe package insert reports myalgias incidence to be < 5% in patients and research has shown up to a 20% incidence of muscle-related AEs with statin therapy.^3,10 Based on the package information reporting increased AUC values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease, it was anticipated there may be an increased risk of muscle-related AEs in patients with CKD.³ However, this study found the same incidence of muscle-related AEs in patients with and without CKD. Previous research on statin-intolerant patients found the incidence of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe to be 23.0% and 28.8%.^11,12 This increased incidence of muscle-related AEs may be the result of including patients with a history of statin intolerance. Collectively, data from clinical trials and this study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statins appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe.^11,12 Clinicians and patients should be educated on the potential for these AEs and be aware that the likelihood may be greater if there is a history of statin intolerance. To our knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe in patients with and without CKD.

Limitations

This retrospective chart review was performed over a prespecified period and only patients initiated on ezetimibe by a PACT pharmacist were included. This study did not assess the percentage of LDL reduction in patients on concomitant statins vs those who were not on concomitant statins. The study only included 173 patients. Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. In addition, veterans may not be representative of the general population given their high comorbidity burden and other exposures. Some reported muscle-related AEs associated with ezetimibe may be attributed to the nocebo effect.

Conclusions

The results of this retrospective chart review suggest there may be a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen with ezetimibe therapy than reported within the literature. There was a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels in patients with CKD than in patients without CKD. Additionally, there were the same rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy in patients with and without CKD. The rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy were higher than reported in the medication’s package insert, but lower than reported in literature that included statin-intolerant patients. These results indicate there may be a benefit to an increase in use of ezetimibe in clinical practice due to its increased effectiveness and safety in patients with and without CKD. Ultimately, this can help patients achieve their LDL goals as recommended by ACC clinical practice guidelines.

Statins are widely used to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).¹ However, despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, many patients may not reach their LDL and non-HDL goals. Some patients may experience adverse events (AEs), particularly muscle-related AEs, which can limit the use of these medications.

The 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC) expert consensus pathway recommends a goal LDL of < 55 mg/dL in very high-risk patients, defined as those with a history of multiple major ASCVD events or 1 major ASCVD event and multiple high-risk conditions.² Major ASCVD events include acute coronary syndrome within 12 months, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (ie, claudication with ankle-brachial index < 0.85 or previous revascularization or amputation). Factors for being considered high risk include age > 65 years, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of prior coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention outside the major ASCVD events, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m²), current smoking, persistently elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy and ezetimibe, and history of congestive heart failure.² For these patients, statin therapy alone may not achieve LDL goal. 

The ACC recommends ezetimibe as the initial nonstatin therapy in patients who are not at their goal LDL.² Ezetimibe works by inhibiting Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 protein, which causes reduced cholesterol absorption in the small intestine.^2,3 Previous studies have shown the benefit of ezetimibe for LDL reduction and ASCVD prevention.^4-7 The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study found the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than simvastatin monotherapy. IMPROVE-IT also reported a further clinical benefit when lower LDL targets (ie, < 55 mg/dL) are achieved, which aligns with the expert consensus pathway recommendations for a lower LDL goal for very high-risk patients.^2,5

The RACING trial found that treatment with a moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was noninferior to treatment with a high-intensity statin for the primary outcome of occurrence of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke within 3 years. The combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe achieved lower LDL-C levels and lower incidence of drug intolerance compared to high intensity statin monotherapy.⁶ The SHARP-CKD study assessed major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD who had no history of MI or coronary revascularization. The study found that lowering LDL-C with the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe safely reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with CKD.⁷

Lastly, the 2019 EWTOPIA 75 study found that ezetimibe noted a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, coronary revascularization, or stroke compared to placebo. Ezetimibe showed benefits in preventing ASCVD events independently of statin therapy.⁸ These clinical trials provided evidence for the efficacy of ezetimibe for secondary or primary prevention of ASCVD, patients with CKD, and patients who are not at their LDL goal despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe are reported to be 15% to 19% for monotherapy and 13% to 25% when used in combination with a statin.⁴ Given that the ACC now recommends lower LDL goals, patients may need additional lowering despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy.² Additionally, the package insert for ezetimibe reports increased area under the curve (AUC) values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease. It is anticipated that ezetimibe may show an increased reduction of LDL and non-HDL, but there may also be an increased risk for muscle-related AEs.³

This quality-assurance quality improvement project investigated the use of ezetimibe in patients with CKD to determine whether there is further LDL and non-HDL reduction in this patient population. It sought to determine the LDL and non-HDL percentage reduction in patients with and without CKD at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) and whether there is an increased risk for muscle-related AEs. Determining the percentage reduction of LDL and non-HDL within this population can help increase use of ezetimibe in patients not at their LDL or non-HDL goal or for those patients unable to tolerate statin therapy.

Methods

This single-center retrospective chart review investigated patients prescribed ezetimibe by a patient aligned care team (PACT) pharmacist at WBVAMC between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023. This project was determined to be nonresearch by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 multisite institutional review board. Patients were excluded from the review if they started taking ezetimibe outside of the prespecified time frame, if ezetimibe was initiated by a non-WBVAMC PACT pharmacist, or if there was no follow-up lipid panel obtained within 6 months of initiation of ezetimibe.

The primary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL reduction and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients without CKD. The secondary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL levels and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients with CKD. For this study, CKD was defined as a patient having an eGFR 15 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m². Non-HDL is the combination of LDL-C and very LDL-C and represents all potentially atherogenic particles. The 2022 Expert Consensus Pathway included non-HDL goals in addition to LDL goals.² Non-HDL cholesterol levels can be used for patients with elevated triglycerides where LDL levels may not be as accurate. To account for instances of elevated triglycerides, this study assessed changes in both LDL and non-HDL levels.

Data were collected from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and recorded in a spreadsheet. Collected data included age, sex, race, concomitant cholesterol-lowering medications (statin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitor, bempedoic acid, fish oil, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and fibrates), baseline lipid panel, lipid panel within 6 months of ezetimibe initiation, and eGFR level. If the patient’s LDL or non-HDL levels worsened on the follow-up lipid panel, their baseline LDL and non-HDL levels were used to calculate the percentage reduction; thus, the percentage reduction would be 0%. This strategy was used in prior research, notably the IMPROVE-IT and SHARP-CKD trials. 

Ezetimibe 5 mg once daily was used in this study based on a 2008 VA study that evaluated the use of ezetimibe 5 mg vs ezetimibe 10 mg and the percentage reduction of LDL with each dose. The study found no significant difference between the 5 mg and 10 mg dose.⁹ Most patients included in this study received the 5 mg dose.

Results

This retrospective chart review consisted of 173 patients, 137 (79.2%) without CKD and 36 (20.8%) with CKD at baseline. The mean age was 69.6 years, 155 (89.6%) patients were male, and 18 (10.4%) were female. There were 164 concomitant medications, including 115 patients prescribed a statin and 38 patients prescribed fish oil (Table 1).

Patients without CKD had mean reductions in LDL levels of 23.5% and non-HDL levels of 21.7% (Figure). Patients who had an increase in LDL and non-HDL levels were excluded to control for potential confounding factors such as dietary changes, discontinuation of ezetimibe therapy, nonadherence to ezetimibe, and medication changes that impacted follow-up laboratory tests such as discontinuation of a statin. Fifteen patients experienced an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels. After excluding these patients, those without CKD had a mean reduction in LDL levels of 28.0% and non-HDL levels of 25.5%. Nineteen (13.9%) patients without CKD experienced a muscle-related AE (Table 2). One patient discontinued ezetimibe and statin use following a Lyme disease diagnosis due to concerns over potential muscle-related AEs. 

Patients with CKD had a mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels of 27.0% and 24.8%, respectively. Patients with an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels were also excluded to help control for potential confounding factors. After excluding 4 patients with increased LDL and non-HDL levels, the mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels was 30.5% and 27.5%, respectively. Five (13.9%) patients with CKD experienced muscle-related AEs thought to be due to ezetimibe. Other AEs (eg, urticaria, diarrhea, reflux, dizziness, headache, upset stomach) were reported that led to discontinuation of ezetimibe, but only muscle-related AEs were analyzed.

Discussion

This retrospective chart review found larger reductions in LDL and non-HDL levels for patients with CKD than reported in the literature.⁴ Based on the findings that indicate a greater cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe, the results suggest an underutilization of ezetimibe in clinical practice, which may be due to clinicians favoring statin therapy and overlooking ezetimibe as a viable option based on recommendation in earlier guidelines. The 2022 guidelines transitioned from a statin focus to a focus on LDL targets and goals.²

According to the ACC, there is evidence to support a direct relationship between LDL-C levels, atherosclerosis progression, and ASCVD event risk.² Absolute LDL-C level reduction is directly associated with ASCVD risk reduction which supports the LDL hypothesis. There appears to be no specific LDL-C level below which benefit ceases.² This suggests that lower LDL-C targets (< 55 mg/dL) should be used when clinically indicated. Many patients are either unable to reach their goal LDL levels with statin monotherapy or are unable to tolerate statin therapy at higher doses, which may require additional pharmacotherapy to reach goal LDL-C. The ACC expert consensus pathway recommends ezetimibe as the initial add-on treatment to statins.² The RACING trial showed the benefit of adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin vs increasing to a high-intensity statin dose. This trial found patients had lower LDL levels and lower rates of intolerances, which further supports ezetimibe use.⁶

This quality improvement project assessed LDL and non-HDL level reduction in patients with CKD. As anticipated, there was greater reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen in patients with CKD. The SHARP-CKD trial also found reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with CKD.⁷ Given the reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with or without CKD, add-on therapy of ezetimibe should be recommended for patients who do not achieve their LDL goals with statin therapy or for patients who intolerant to statin therapy. 

The ezetimibe package insert reports myalgias incidence to be < 5% in patients and research has shown up to a 20% incidence of muscle-related AEs with statin therapy.^3,10 Based on the package information reporting increased AUC values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease, it was anticipated there may be an increased risk of muscle-related AEs in patients with CKD.³ However, this study found the same incidence of muscle-related AEs in patients with and without CKD. Previous research on statin-intolerant patients found the incidence of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe to be 23.0% and 28.8%.^11,12 This increased incidence of muscle-related AEs may be the result of including patients with a history of statin intolerance. Collectively, data from clinical trials and this study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statins appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe.^11,12 Clinicians and patients should be educated on the potential for these AEs and be aware that the likelihood may be greater if there is a history of statin intolerance. To our knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe in patients with and without CKD.

Limitations

This retrospective chart review was performed over a prespecified period and only patients initiated on ezetimibe by a PACT pharmacist were included. This study did not assess the percentage of LDL reduction in patients on concomitant statins vs those who were not on concomitant statins. The study only included 173 patients. Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. In addition, veterans may not be representative of the general population given their high comorbidity burden and other exposures. Some reported muscle-related AEs associated with ezetimibe may be attributed to the nocebo effect.

Conclusions

The results of this retrospective chart review suggest there may be a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen with ezetimibe therapy than reported within the literature. There was a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels in patients with CKD than in patients without CKD. Additionally, there were the same rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy in patients with and without CKD. The rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy were higher than reported in the medication’s package insert, but lower than reported in literature that included statin-intolerant patients. These results indicate there may be a benefit to an increase in use of ezetimibe in clinical practice due to its increased effectiveness and safety in patients with and without CKD. Ultimately, this can help patients achieve their LDL goals as recommended by ACC clinical practice guidelines.

Statins are widely used to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).¹ However, despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, many patients may not reach their LDL and non-HDL goals. Some patients may experience adverse events (AEs), particularly muscle-related AEs, which can limit the use of these medications.

The 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC) expert consensus pathway recommends a goal LDL of < 55 mg/dL in very high-risk patients, defined as those with a history of multiple major ASCVD events or 1 major ASCVD event and multiple high-risk conditions.² Major ASCVD events include acute coronary syndrome within 12 months, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (ie, claudication with ankle-brachial index < 0.85 or previous revascularization or amputation). Factors for being considered high risk include age > 65 years, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of prior coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention outside the major ASCVD events, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m²), current smoking, persistently elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy and ezetimibe, and history of congestive heart failure.² For these patients, statin therapy alone may not achieve LDL goal. 

The ACC recommends ezetimibe as the initial nonstatin therapy in patients who are not at their goal LDL.² Ezetimibe works by inhibiting Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 protein, which causes reduced cholesterol absorption in the small intestine.^2,3 Previous studies have shown the benefit of ezetimibe for LDL reduction and ASCVD prevention.^4-7 The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study found the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than simvastatin monotherapy. IMPROVE-IT also reported a further clinical benefit when lower LDL targets (ie, < 55 mg/dL) are achieved, which aligns with the expert consensus pathway recommendations for a lower LDL goal for very high-risk patients.^2,5

The RACING trial found that treatment with a moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was noninferior to treatment with a high-intensity statin for the primary outcome of occurrence of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke within 3 years. The combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe achieved lower LDL-C levels and lower incidence of drug intolerance compared to high intensity statin monotherapy.⁶ The SHARP-CKD study assessed major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD who had no history of MI or coronary revascularization. The study found that lowering LDL-C with the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe safely reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with CKD.⁷

Lastly, the 2019 EWTOPIA 75 study found that ezetimibe noted a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, coronary revascularization, or stroke compared to placebo. Ezetimibe showed benefits in preventing ASCVD events independently of statin therapy.⁸ These clinical trials provided evidence for the efficacy of ezetimibe for secondary or primary prevention of ASCVD, patients with CKD, and patients who are not at their LDL goal despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe are reported to be 15% to 19% for monotherapy and 13% to 25% when used in combination with a statin.⁴ Given that the ACC now recommends lower LDL goals, patients may need additional lowering despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy.² Additionally, the package insert for ezetimibe reports increased area under the curve (AUC) values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease. It is anticipated that ezetimibe may show an increased reduction of LDL and non-HDL, but there may also be an increased risk for muscle-related AEs.³

This quality-assurance quality improvement project investigated the use of ezetimibe in patients with CKD to determine whether there is further LDL and non-HDL reduction in this patient population. It sought to determine the LDL and non-HDL percentage reduction in patients with and without CKD at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) and whether there is an increased risk for muscle-related AEs. Determining the percentage reduction of LDL and non-HDL within this population can help increase use of ezetimibe in patients not at their LDL or non-HDL goal or for those patients unable to tolerate statin therapy.

Methods

This single-center retrospective chart review investigated patients prescribed ezetimibe by a patient aligned care team (PACT) pharmacist at WBVAMC between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023. This project was determined to be nonresearch by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 multisite institutional review board. Patients were excluded from the review if they started taking ezetimibe outside of the prespecified time frame, if ezetimibe was initiated by a non-WBVAMC PACT pharmacist, or if there was no follow-up lipid panel obtained within 6 months of initiation of ezetimibe.

The primary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL reduction and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients without CKD. The secondary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL levels and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients with CKD. For this study, CKD was defined as a patient having an eGFR 15 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m². Non-HDL is the combination of LDL-C and very LDL-C and represents all potentially atherogenic particles. The 2022 Expert Consensus Pathway included non-HDL goals in addition to LDL goals.² Non-HDL cholesterol levels can be used for patients with elevated triglycerides where LDL levels may not be as accurate. To account for instances of elevated triglycerides, this study assessed changes in both LDL and non-HDL levels.

Data were collected from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and recorded in a spreadsheet. Collected data included age, sex, race, concomitant cholesterol-lowering medications (statin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitor, bempedoic acid, fish oil, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and fibrates), baseline lipid panel, lipid panel within 6 months of ezetimibe initiation, and eGFR level. If the patient’s LDL or non-HDL levels worsened on the follow-up lipid panel, their baseline LDL and non-HDL levels were used to calculate the percentage reduction; thus, the percentage reduction would be 0%. This strategy was used in prior research, notably the IMPROVE-IT and SHARP-CKD trials. 

Ezetimibe 5 mg once daily was used in this study based on a 2008 VA study that evaluated the use of ezetimibe 5 mg vs ezetimibe 10 mg and the percentage reduction of LDL with each dose. The study found no significant difference between the 5 mg and 10 mg dose.⁹ Most patients included in this study received the 5 mg dose.

Results

This retrospective chart review consisted of 173 patients, 137 (79.2%) without CKD and 36 (20.8%) with CKD at baseline. The mean age was 69.6 years, 155 (89.6%) patients were male, and 18 (10.4%) were female. There were 164 concomitant medications, including 115 patients prescribed a statin and 38 patients prescribed fish oil (Table 1).

Patients without CKD had mean reductions in LDL levels of 23.5% and non-HDL levels of 21.7% (Figure). Patients who had an increase in LDL and non-HDL levels were excluded to control for potential confounding factors such as dietary changes, discontinuation of ezetimibe therapy, nonadherence to ezetimibe, and medication changes that impacted follow-up laboratory tests such as discontinuation of a statin. Fifteen patients experienced an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels. After excluding these patients, those without CKD had a mean reduction in LDL levels of 28.0% and non-HDL levels of 25.5%. Nineteen (13.9%) patients without CKD experienced a muscle-related AE (Table 2). One patient discontinued ezetimibe and statin use following a Lyme disease diagnosis due to concerns over potential muscle-related AEs. 

Patients with CKD had a mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels of 27.0% and 24.8%, respectively. Patients with an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels were also excluded to help control for potential confounding factors. After excluding 4 patients with increased LDL and non-HDL levels, the mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels was 30.5% and 27.5%, respectively. Five (13.9%) patients with CKD experienced muscle-related AEs thought to be due to ezetimibe. Other AEs (eg, urticaria, diarrhea, reflux, dizziness, headache, upset stomach) were reported that led to discontinuation of ezetimibe, but only muscle-related AEs were analyzed.

Discussion

This retrospective chart review found larger reductions in LDL and non-HDL levels for patients with CKD than reported in the literature.⁴ Based on the findings that indicate a greater cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe, the results suggest an underutilization of ezetimibe in clinical practice, which may be due to clinicians favoring statin therapy and overlooking ezetimibe as a viable option based on recommendation in earlier guidelines. The 2022 guidelines transitioned from a statin focus to a focus on LDL targets and goals.²

According to the ACC, there is evidence to support a direct relationship between LDL-C levels, atherosclerosis progression, and ASCVD event risk.² Absolute LDL-C level reduction is directly associated with ASCVD risk reduction which supports the LDL hypothesis. There appears to be no specific LDL-C level below which benefit ceases.² This suggests that lower LDL-C targets (< 55 mg/dL) should be used when clinically indicated. Many patients are either unable to reach their goal LDL levels with statin monotherapy or are unable to tolerate statin therapy at higher doses, which may require additional pharmacotherapy to reach goal LDL-C. The ACC expert consensus pathway recommends ezetimibe as the initial add-on treatment to statins.² The RACING trial showed the benefit of adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin vs increasing to a high-intensity statin dose. This trial found patients had lower LDL levels and lower rates of intolerances, which further supports ezetimibe use.⁶

This quality improvement project assessed LDL and non-HDL level reduction in patients with CKD. As anticipated, there was greater reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen in patients with CKD. The SHARP-CKD trial also found reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with CKD.⁷ Given the reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with or without CKD, add-on therapy of ezetimibe should be recommended for patients who do not achieve their LDL goals with statin therapy or for patients who intolerant to statin therapy. 

The ezetimibe package insert reports myalgias incidence to be < 5% in patients and research has shown up to a 20% incidence of muscle-related AEs with statin therapy.^3,10 Based on the package information reporting increased AUC values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease, it was anticipated there may be an increased risk of muscle-related AEs in patients with CKD.³ However, this study found the same incidence of muscle-related AEs in patients with and without CKD. Previous research on statin-intolerant patients found the incidence of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe to be 23.0% and 28.8%.^11,12 This increased incidence of muscle-related AEs may be the result of including patients with a history of statin intolerance. Collectively, data from clinical trials and this study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statins appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe.^11,12 Clinicians and patients should be educated on the potential for these AEs and be aware that the likelihood may be greater if there is a history of statin intolerance. To our knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe in patients with and without CKD.

Limitations

This retrospective chart review was performed over a prespecified period and only patients initiated on ezetimibe by a PACT pharmacist were included. This study did not assess the percentage of LDL reduction in patients on concomitant statins vs those who were not on concomitant statins. The study only included 173 patients. Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. In addition, veterans may not be representative of the general population given their high comorbidity burden and other exposures. Some reported muscle-related AEs associated with ezetimibe may be attributed to the nocebo effect.

Conclusions

The results of this retrospective chart review suggest there may be a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen with ezetimibe therapy than reported within the literature. There was a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels in patients with CKD than in patients without CKD. Additionally, there were the same rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy in patients with and without CKD. The rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy were higher than reported in the medication’s package insert, but lower than reported in literature that included statin-intolerant patients. These results indicate there may be a benefit to an increase in use of ezetimibe in clinical practice due to its increased effectiveness and safety in patients with and without CKD. Ultimately, this can help patients achieve their LDL goals as recommended by ACC clinical practice guidelines.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common inherited condition characterized by abnormal asymmetric left ventricular (LV) thickening. This can lead to LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, which has important implications for anesthesia management. This article describes a case of previously undiagnosed HCM discovered during a preoperative physical examination prior to a routine surveillance colonoscopy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 55-year-old Army veteran with a history of a sessile serrated colon adenoma presented to the preadmission testing clinic prior to planned surveillance colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care. His medical history included untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea (53 apnea-hypopnea index score), diet-controlled hypertension, prediabetes (6.3% hemoglobin A_1c), hypogonadism, and obesity (41 body mass index). Medications included semaglutide 1.7 mg injected subcutaneously weekly and testosterone 200 mg injected intramuscularly every 2 weeks, as well as lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide 10 to 12.5 mg daily, which had recently been discontinued because his blood pressure had improved with a low-sodium diet.

A review of systems was unremarkable except for progressive weight gain. The patient had no family history of sudden cardiac death. On physical examination, the patient’s blood pressure was 119/81 mm Hg, pulse was 86 beats/min, and respiratory rate was 18 breaths/min. The patient was clinically euvolemic, with no jugular venous distention or peripheral edema, and his lungs were clear to auscultation. There was, however, a soft, nonradiating grade 2/6 systolic murmur that had not been previously documented. The murmur decreased substantially with the Valsalva maneuver, with no change in hand grip.

Laboratory studies revealed hemoglobin and renal function were within the reference range. A routine 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was unremarkable. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed moderate pulmonary hypertension (59 mm Hg right ventricular systolic pressure), asymmetric LV hypertrophy (2.1 cm septal thickness), and severe LVOT obstruction (131.8 mm Hg gradient). Severe systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve was also present. The LV ejection fraction was 60% to 65%, with normal cavity size and systolic function. These findings were consistent with severe hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Upon more detailed questioning, the patient reported that over the previous 5 years he had experienced gradually decreasing exercise tolerance and mild dyspnea on exertion, particularly in hot weather, which he attributed to weight gain. He also reported a presyncopal episode the previous month while working in his garage in hot weather for a prolonged period of time.

The patient’s elective colonoscopy was canceled, and he was referred to cardiology. While awaiting cardiac consultation, he was instructed to maintain good hydration and avoid any heavy physical activity beyond walking. He was told not to resume his use of lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide. A screening 7-day Holter monitor showed no ventricular or supraventricular ectopy. After cardiology consultation, the patient was referred to a HCM specialty clinic, where a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed severe asymmetric hypertrophy with resting obstruction (Figures 1-4). Treatment options were discussed with the patient, and he underwent a trial with the Β—blocker metoprolol 50 mg daily, which he could not tolerate. Verapamil extended-release 180 mg orally once daily was then initiated; however, his dyspnea persisted. He was amenable to surgical therapy and underwent septal myectomy, with 12 g of septal myocardium removed. He did well postoperatively, with a follow-up echocardiogram showing normal LV systolic function and no LVOT gradient detectable at rest or with Valsalva maneuver. His fatigue and exertional dyspnea significantly improved. Once the patient underwent septal myectomy and was determined to have no detectable LVOT gradient, he was approved for colonoscopy which has been scheduled but not completed.

DISCUSSION

Once thought rare, HCM is now considered to be a relatively common inherited disorder, occurring in about 1 in 500 persons, with some suggesting that the actual prevalence is closer to 1 in 200 persons.^1,2 Most often caused by mutations in ≥ 1 of 11 genes responsible for encoding cardiac sarcomere proteins, HCM is characterized by abnormal LV thickening without chamber enlargement in the absence of any identifiable cause, such as aortic valve stenosis or uncontrolled hypertension. The hypertrophy is often asymmetric, and in cases of asymmetric septal hypertrophy, dynamic LVOT obstruction can occur (known as HOCM). The condition is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable expression and is associated with myocardial fiber disarray, which can occur years before symptom onset.³ This myocardial disarray can lead to remodeling and an increased wall-to-lumen ratio of the coronary arteries, resulting in impaired coronary reserve.

Depending on the degree of LVOT obstruction, patients with HCM may be classified as nonobstructive, labile, or obstructive at rest. Patients without obstruction have an outflow gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg that is not provoked with Valsalva maneuver, administration of amyl nitrite, or exercise treadmill testing.³ Patients classified as labile do not have LVOT obstruction at rest, but obstruction may be induced by provocative measures. Finally, about one-third of patients with HCM will have LVOT gradients of > 30 mm Hg at rest. These patients are at increased risk for progression to symptomatic heart failure and may be candidates for surgical myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation.⁴ The patient in this case had a resting LVOT gradient of 131.8 mm Hg on echocardiography. The magnitude of this gradient placed the patient at a significantly higher risk of ventricular dysrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.⁵

Wall thickness also has prognostic implications. ⁶ Although any area of the myocardium can be affected, the septum is involved in about 90% cases. In their series of 48 patients followed over 6.5 years, Spirito et al found that the risk of sudden death in patients with HCM increased as wall thickness increased. For patients with a wall thickness of < 15 mm, the risk of death was 0 per 1000 person-years; however, this increased to 18.2 per 1000 person-years for patients with a wall thickness of > 30 mm.⁷

While many patients with HCM are asymptomatic, others may report dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, presyncope/ syncope, postural lightheadedness, fatigue, or edema. Symptomatology, however, is quite variable and does not necessarily correlate with the degree of outflow obstruction. Surprisingly, some patients with significant LVOT may have minimal symptoms, such as the patient in this case, while others with a lesser degree of LVOT obstruction may be very symptomatic.^3,4

Physical examination of a patient with HCM may be normal or may reveal nonspecific findings such as a fourth heart sound or a systolic murmur. In general, physical examination abnormalities are related to LVOT obstruction. Those patients without significant outflow obstruction may have a normal cardiac examination. While patients with HCM may have a variety of systolic murmurs, the 2 most common are those related to outflow tract obstruction and mitral regurgitation caused by systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve.⁴ The systolic murmur associated with significant LVOT obstruction has been described as a harsh, crescendo-decrescendo type that begins just after S1 and is heard best at the apex and lower left sternal border.⁴ It may radiate to the axilla and base but not generally into the neck. The murmur usually increases with Valsalva maneuver and decreases with handgrip or going from a standing to a sitting/ squatting position. The initial examination of the patient in this case was not suggestive of HOCM, as confirmed by 2 practitioners (a cardiologist and an internist), each with > 30 years of clinical experience. This may have been related to the patient’s hydration status at the time, with Valsalva maneuver increasing obstruction to the point of reduced flow.

About 90% of patients with HCM will have abnormalities on ECG, most commonly LV hypertrophy with a strain pattern. Other ECG findings include: (1) prominent abnormal Q waves, particularly in the inferior (II, III, and aVF) and lateral leads (I, aVL, and V4-V6), reflecting depolarization of a hypertrophied septum; (2) left axis deviation; (3) deeply inverted T waves in leads V2 through V4; and (4) P wave abnormalities indicative of left atrial (LA) or biatrial enlargement. ⁸ It is notable that the patient in this case had a normal ECG, given that a minority of patients with HCM have been shown to have a normal ECG.⁹

Echocardiography plays an important role in diagnosing HCM. Diagnostic criteria include the presence of asymmetric hypertrophy (most commonly with anterior septal involvement), systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve, a nondilated LV cavity, septal immobility, and premature closure of the aortic valve. LV thickness is measured at both the septum and free wall; values ≥ 15 mm, with a septal-to-free wall thickness ratio of ≥ 1.3, are suggestive of HCM. Asymmetric LV hypertrophy can also be seen in other segments besides the septum, such as the apex.¹⁰

HCM/HOCM is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people. The condition also contributes to significant functional morbidity due to heart failure and increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke. Treatments tend to focus on symptom relief and slowing disease progression and include the use of medications such as Β—blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and the myosin inhibitor mavacamten.¹¹ Select patients, such as those with severe LVOT obstruction and symptoms despite treatment with Β—blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, may be offered septal myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation, coupled with insertion of an implantable cardiac defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients at high arrhythmic risk.^1,12

Patients with HCM, particularly those with LVOT obstruction, pose distinct challenges to the anesthesiologist because they are highly sensitive to decreases in preload and afterload. These patients frequently experience adverse perioperative events such as myocardial ischemia, systemic hypotension, and supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. Acute congestive heart failure may also occur, presumably due to concomitant diastolic dysfunction. Patients with previously unrecognized HCM are of particular concern, as they may manifest unexpected and sudden hypotension with the induction of anesthesia. There may then be a paradoxical response to vasoactive drugs and anesthetic agents, which accentuate LVOT obstruction. In these circumstances, undiagnosed HCM should be considered, and intraoperative rescue transesophageal echocardiography be performed.¹³ Once the diagnosis is confirmed, efforts should be made to reduce myocardial contractility and sympathetic discharge (eg, with Β—blockers), increase afterload (eg, with α1 agonists), and improve preload with adequate hydration. Proper resuscitation of hypotensive patients with HCM requires a thorough understanding of disease pathology, as effective interventions may seem to be counterintuitive. Inotropic agents such as epinephrine are contraindicated in HCM because increased inotropy and chronotropy worsen LVOT obstruction. Volume status is often tenuous; while adequate preload is important, overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may promote heart failure. It is important to keep in mind that even patients without resting LVOT obstruction may develop dynamic obstruction with anesthesia induction due to sudden reductions in preload and afterload. It is also important to note that the degree of LV hypertrophy is directly correlated with arrhythmic sudden death. Those patients with LV wall thickness ≥ 30 mm are at increased risk for potentially lethal tachyarrhythmias in the operating room.¹⁴

These considerations reinforce the need for proper preoperative identification of patients with HCM. Heightened awareness is key, given the fact that HCM is relatively common and tends to be underdiagnosed in the general population. These patients are generally young, otherwise healthy, and often undergo minor operative procedures in outpatient settings. It is incumbent upon the preoperative evaluator to take a thorough medical history and perform a careful physical examination. Clues to the diagnosis include exertional dyspnea, fatigue, angina, syncope/presyncope, or a family history of sudden cardiac death or HCM. A systolic ejection murmur, particularly one that increases with standing or Valsalva maneuver, and decreases with squatting or handgrip may also raise clinical suspicion. These patients should undergo a full cardiac evaluation, including echocardiography.

CONCLUSIONS

HCM is a common condition that is important to diagnose in the preoperative clinic. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic complications during induction of anesthesia due to the sudden reduction in preload and afterload, which may cause a significant increase in LVOT obstruction. A high index of suspicion is essential, as clinical diagnosis can be challenging. The physical examination may be deceiving and symptoms are often subtle and nonspecific. It is imperative to alert the anesthesiologist before surgery so the complex hemodynamic management of patients with HOCM can be appropriately managed.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common inherited condition characterized by abnormal asymmetric left ventricular (LV) thickening. This can lead to LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, which has important implications for anesthesia management. This article describes a case of previously undiagnosed HCM discovered during a preoperative physical examination prior to a routine surveillance colonoscopy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 55-year-old Army veteran with a history of a sessile serrated colon adenoma presented to the preadmission testing clinic prior to planned surveillance colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care. His medical history included untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea (53 apnea-hypopnea index score), diet-controlled hypertension, prediabetes (6.3% hemoglobin A_1c), hypogonadism, and obesity (41 body mass index). Medications included semaglutide 1.7 mg injected subcutaneously weekly and testosterone 200 mg injected intramuscularly every 2 weeks, as well as lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide 10 to 12.5 mg daily, which had recently been discontinued because his blood pressure had improved with a low-sodium diet.

A review of systems was unremarkable except for progressive weight gain. The patient had no family history of sudden cardiac death. On physical examination, the patient’s blood pressure was 119/81 mm Hg, pulse was 86 beats/min, and respiratory rate was 18 breaths/min. The patient was clinically euvolemic, with no jugular venous distention or peripheral edema, and his lungs were clear to auscultation. There was, however, a soft, nonradiating grade 2/6 systolic murmur that had not been previously documented. The murmur decreased substantially with the Valsalva maneuver, with no change in hand grip.

Laboratory studies revealed hemoglobin and renal function were within the reference range. A routine 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was unremarkable. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed moderate pulmonary hypertension (59 mm Hg right ventricular systolic pressure), asymmetric LV hypertrophy (2.1 cm septal thickness), and severe LVOT obstruction (131.8 mm Hg gradient). Severe systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve was also present. The LV ejection fraction was 60% to 65%, with normal cavity size and systolic function. These findings were consistent with severe hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Upon more detailed questioning, the patient reported that over the previous 5 years he had experienced gradually decreasing exercise tolerance and mild dyspnea on exertion, particularly in hot weather, which he attributed to weight gain. He also reported a presyncopal episode the previous month while working in his garage in hot weather for a prolonged period of time.

The patient’s elective colonoscopy was canceled, and he was referred to cardiology. While awaiting cardiac consultation, he was instructed to maintain good hydration and avoid any heavy physical activity beyond walking. He was told not to resume his use of lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide. A screening 7-day Holter monitor showed no ventricular or supraventricular ectopy. After cardiology consultation, the patient was referred to a HCM specialty clinic, where a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed severe asymmetric hypertrophy with resting obstruction (Figures 1-4). Treatment options were discussed with the patient, and he underwent a trial with the Β—blocker metoprolol 50 mg daily, which he could not tolerate. Verapamil extended-release 180 mg orally once daily was then initiated; however, his dyspnea persisted. He was amenable to surgical therapy and underwent septal myectomy, with 12 g of septal myocardium removed. He did well postoperatively, with a follow-up echocardiogram showing normal LV systolic function and no LVOT gradient detectable at rest or with Valsalva maneuver. His fatigue and exertional dyspnea significantly improved. Once the patient underwent septal myectomy and was determined to have no detectable LVOT gradient, he was approved for colonoscopy which has been scheduled but not completed.

DISCUSSION

Once thought rare, HCM is now considered to be a relatively common inherited disorder, occurring in about 1 in 500 persons, with some suggesting that the actual prevalence is closer to 1 in 200 persons.^1,2 Most often caused by mutations in ≥ 1 of 11 genes responsible for encoding cardiac sarcomere proteins, HCM is characterized by abnormal LV thickening without chamber enlargement in the absence of any identifiable cause, such as aortic valve stenosis or uncontrolled hypertension. The hypertrophy is often asymmetric, and in cases of asymmetric septal hypertrophy, dynamic LVOT obstruction can occur (known as HOCM). The condition is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable expression and is associated with myocardial fiber disarray, which can occur years before symptom onset.³ This myocardial disarray can lead to remodeling and an increased wall-to-lumen ratio of the coronary arteries, resulting in impaired coronary reserve.

Depending on the degree of LVOT obstruction, patients with HCM may be classified as nonobstructive, labile, or obstructive at rest. Patients without obstruction have an outflow gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg that is not provoked with Valsalva maneuver, administration of amyl nitrite, or exercise treadmill testing.³ Patients classified as labile do not have LVOT obstruction at rest, but obstruction may be induced by provocative measures. Finally, about one-third of patients with HCM will have LVOT gradients of > 30 mm Hg at rest. These patients are at increased risk for progression to symptomatic heart failure and may be candidates for surgical myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation.⁴ The patient in this case had a resting LVOT gradient of 131.8 mm Hg on echocardiography. The magnitude of this gradient placed the patient at a significantly higher risk of ventricular dysrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.⁵

Wall thickness also has prognostic implications. ⁶ Although any area of the myocardium can be affected, the septum is involved in about 90% cases. In their series of 48 patients followed over 6.5 years, Spirito et al found that the risk of sudden death in patients with HCM increased as wall thickness increased. For patients with a wall thickness of < 15 mm, the risk of death was 0 per 1000 person-years; however, this increased to 18.2 per 1000 person-years for patients with a wall thickness of > 30 mm.⁷

While many patients with HCM are asymptomatic, others may report dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, presyncope/ syncope, postural lightheadedness, fatigue, or edema. Symptomatology, however, is quite variable and does not necessarily correlate with the degree of outflow obstruction. Surprisingly, some patients with significant LVOT may have minimal symptoms, such as the patient in this case, while others with a lesser degree of LVOT obstruction may be very symptomatic.^3,4

Physical examination of a patient with HCM may be normal or may reveal nonspecific findings such as a fourth heart sound or a systolic murmur. In general, physical examination abnormalities are related to LVOT obstruction. Those patients without significant outflow obstruction may have a normal cardiac examination. While patients with HCM may have a variety of systolic murmurs, the 2 most common are those related to outflow tract obstruction and mitral regurgitation caused by systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve.⁴ The systolic murmur associated with significant LVOT obstruction has been described as a harsh, crescendo-decrescendo type that begins just after S1 and is heard best at the apex and lower left sternal border.⁴ It may radiate to the axilla and base but not generally into the neck. The murmur usually increases with Valsalva maneuver and decreases with handgrip or going from a standing to a sitting/ squatting position. The initial examination of the patient in this case was not suggestive of HOCM, as confirmed by 2 practitioners (a cardiologist and an internist), each with > 30 years of clinical experience. This may have been related to the patient’s hydration status at the time, with Valsalva maneuver increasing obstruction to the point of reduced flow.

About 90% of patients with HCM will have abnormalities on ECG, most commonly LV hypertrophy with a strain pattern. Other ECG findings include: (1) prominent abnormal Q waves, particularly in the inferior (II, III, and aVF) and lateral leads (I, aVL, and V4-V6), reflecting depolarization of a hypertrophied septum; (2) left axis deviation; (3) deeply inverted T waves in leads V2 through V4; and (4) P wave abnormalities indicative of left atrial (LA) or biatrial enlargement. ⁸ It is notable that the patient in this case had a normal ECG, given that a minority of patients with HCM have been shown to have a normal ECG.⁹

Echocardiography plays an important role in diagnosing HCM. Diagnostic criteria include the presence of asymmetric hypertrophy (most commonly with anterior septal involvement), systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve, a nondilated LV cavity, septal immobility, and premature closure of the aortic valve. LV thickness is measured at both the septum and free wall; values ≥ 15 mm, with a septal-to-free wall thickness ratio of ≥ 1.3, are suggestive of HCM. Asymmetric LV hypertrophy can also be seen in other segments besides the septum, such as the apex.¹⁰

HCM/HOCM is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people. The condition also contributes to significant functional morbidity due to heart failure and increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke. Treatments tend to focus on symptom relief and slowing disease progression and include the use of medications such as Β—blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and the myosin inhibitor mavacamten.¹¹ Select patients, such as those with severe LVOT obstruction and symptoms despite treatment with Β—blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, may be offered septal myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation, coupled with insertion of an implantable cardiac defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients at high arrhythmic risk.^1,12

Patients with HCM, particularly those with LVOT obstruction, pose distinct challenges to the anesthesiologist because they are highly sensitive to decreases in preload and afterload. These patients frequently experience adverse perioperative events such as myocardial ischemia, systemic hypotension, and supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. Acute congestive heart failure may also occur, presumably due to concomitant diastolic dysfunction. Patients with previously unrecognized HCM are of particular concern, as they may manifest unexpected and sudden hypotension with the induction of anesthesia. There may then be a paradoxical response to vasoactive drugs and anesthetic agents, which accentuate LVOT obstruction. In these circumstances, undiagnosed HCM should be considered, and intraoperative rescue transesophageal echocardiography be performed.¹³ Once the diagnosis is confirmed, efforts should be made to reduce myocardial contractility and sympathetic discharge (eg, with Β—blockers), increase afterload (eg, with α1 agonists), and improve preload with adequate hydration. Proper resuscitation of hypotensive patients with HCM requires a thorough understanding of disease pathology, as effective interventions may seem to be counterintuitive. Inotropic agents such as epinephrine are contraindicated in HCM because increased inotropy and chronotropy worsen LVOT obstruction. Volume status is often tenuous; while adequate preload is important, overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may promote heart failure. It is important to keep in mind that even patients without resting LVOT obstruction may develop dynamic obstruction with anesthesia induction due to sudden reductions in preload and afterload. It is also important to note that the degree of LV hypertrophy is directly correlated with arrhythmic sudden death. Those patients with LV wall thickness ≥ 30 mm are at increased risk for potentially lethal tachyarrhythmias in the operating room.¹⁴

These considerations reinforce the need for proper preoperative identification of patients with HCM. Heightened awareness is key, given the fact that HCM is relatively common and tends to be underdiagnosed in the general population. These patients are generally young, otherwise healthy, and often undergo minor operative procedures in outpatient settings. It is incumbent upon the preoperative evaluator to take a thorough medical history and perform a careful physical examination. Clues to the diagnosis include exertional dyspnea, fatigue, angina, syncope/presyncope, or a family history of sudden cardiac death or HCM. A systolic ejection murmur, particularly one that increases with standing or Valsalva maneuver, and decreases with squatting or handgrip may also raise clinical suspicion. These patients should undergo a full cardiac evaluation, including echocardiography.

CONCLUSIONS

HCM is a common condition that is important to diagnose in the preoperative clinic. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic complications during induction of anesthesia due to the sudden reduction in preload and afterload, which may cause a significant increase in LVOT obstruction. A high index of suspicion is essential, as clinical diagnosis can be challenging. The physical examination may be deceiving and symptoms are often subtle and nonspecific. It is imperative to alert the anesthesiologist before surgery so the complex hemodynamic management of patients with HOCM can be appropriately managed.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common inherited condition characterized by abnormal asymmetric left ventricular (LV) thickening. This can lead to LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, which has important implications for anesthesia management. This article describes a case of previously undiagnosed HCM discovered during a preoperative physical examination prior to a routine surveillance colonoscopy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 55-year-old Army veteran with a history of a sessile serrated colon adenoma presented to the preadmission testing clinic prior to planned surveillance colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care. His medical history included untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea (53 apnea-hypopnea index score), diet-controlled hypertension, prediabetes (6.3% hemoglobin A_1c), hypogonadism, and obesity (41 body mass index). Medications included semaglutide 1.7 mg injected subcutaneously weekly and testosterone 200 mg injected intramuscularly every 2 weeks, as well as lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide 10 to 12.5 mg daily, which had recently been discontinued because his blood pressure had improved with a low-sodium diet.

A review of systems was unremarkable except for progressive weight gain. The patient had no family history of sudden cardiac death. On physical examination, the patient’s blood pressure was 119/81 mm Hg, pulse was 86 beats/min, and respiratory rate was 18 breaths/min. The patient was clinically euvolemic, with no jugular venous distention or peripheral edema, and his lungs were clear to auscultation. There was, however, a soft, nonradiating grade 2/6 systolic murmur that had not been previously documented. The murmur decreased substantially with the Valsalva maneuver, with no change in hand grip.

Laboratory studies revealed hemoglobin and renal function were within the reference range. A routine 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was unremarkable. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed moderate pulmonary hypertension (59 mm Hg right ventricular systolic pressure), asymmetric LV hypertrophy (2.1 cm septal thickness), and severe LVOT obstruction (131.8 mm Hg gradient). Severe systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve was also present. The LV ejection fraction was 60% to 65%, with normal cavity size and systolic function. These findings were consistent with severe hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Upon more detailed questioning, the patient reported that over the previous 5 years he had experienced gradually decreasing exercise tolerance and mild dyspnea on exertion, particularly in hot weather, which he attributed to weight gain. He also reported a presyncopal episode the previous month while working in his garage in hot weather for a prolonged period of time.

The patient’s elective colonoscopy was canceled, and he was referred to cardiology. While awaiting cardiac consultation, he was instructed to maintain good hydration and avoid any heavy physical activity beyond walking. He was told not to resume his use of lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide. A screening 7-day Holter monitor showed no ventricular or supraventricular ectopy. After cardiology consultation, the patient was referred to a HCM specialty clinic, where a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed severe asymmetric hypertrophy with resting obstruction (Figures 1-4). Treatment options were discussed with the patient, and he underwent a trial with the Β—blocker metoprolol 50 mg daily, which he could not tolerate. Verapamil extended-release 180 mg orally once daily was then initiated; however, his dyspnea persisted. He was amenable to surgical therapy and underwent septal myectomy, with 12 g of septal myocardium removed. He did well postoperatively, with a follow-up echocardiogram showing normal LV systolic function and no LVOT gradient detectable at rest or with Valsalva maneuver. His fatigue and exertional dyspnea significantly improved. Once the patient underwent septal myectomy and was determined to have no detectable LVOT gradient, he was approved for colonoscopy which has been scheduled but not completed.

DISCUSSION

Once thought rare, HCM is now considered to be a relatively common inherited disorder, occurring in about 1 in 500 persons, with some suggesting that the actual prevalence is closer to 1 in 200 persons.^1,2 Most often caused by mutations in ≥ 1 of 11 genes responsible for encoding cardiac sarcomere proteins, HCM is characterized by abnormal LV thickening without chamber enlargement in the absence of any identifiable cause, such as aortic valve stenosis or uncontrolled hypertension. The hypertrophy is often asymmetric, and in cases of asymmetric septal hypertrophy, dynamic LVOT obstruction can occur (known as HOCM). The condition is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable expression and is associated with myocardial fiber disarray, which can occur years before symptom onset.³ This myocardial disarray can lead to remodeling and an increased wall-to-lumen ratio of the coronary arteries, resulting in impaired coronary reserve.

Depending on the degree of LVOT obstruction, patients with HCM may be classified as nonobstructive, labile, or obstructive at rest. Patients without obstruction have an outflow gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg that is not provoked with Valsalva maneuver, administration of amyl nitrite, or exercise treadmill testing.³ Patients classified as labile do not have LVOT obstruction at rest, but obstruction may be induced by provocative measures. Finally, about one-third of patients with HCM will have LVOT gradients of > 30 mm Hg at rest. These patients are at increased risk for progression to symptomatic heart failure and may be candidates for surgical myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation.⁴ The patient in this case had a resting LVOT gradient of 131.8 mm Hg on echocardiography. The magnitude of this gradient placed the patient at a significantly higher risk of ventricular dysrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.⁵

Wall thickness also has prognostic implications. ⁶ Although any area of the myocardium can be affected, the septum is involved in about 90% cases. In their series of 48 patients followed over 6.5 years, Spirito et al found that the risk of sudden death in patients with HCM increased as wall thickness increased. For patients with a wall thickness of < 15 mm, the risk of death was 0 per 1000 person-years; however, this increased to 18.2 per 1000 person-years for patients with a wall thickness of > 30 mm.⁷

While many patients with HCM are asymptomatic, others may report dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, presyncope/ syncope, postural lightheadedness, fatigue, or edema. Symptomatology, however, is quite variable and does not necessarily correlate with the degree of outflow obstruction. Surprisingly, some patients with significant LVOT may have minimal symptoms, such as the patient in this case, while others with a lesser degree of LVOT obstruction may be very symptomatic.^3,4

Physical examination of a patient with HCM may be normal or may reveal nonspecific findings such as a fourth heart sound or a systolic murmur. In general, physical examination abnormalities are related to LVOT obstruction. Those patients without significant outflow obstruction may have a normal cardiac examination. While patients with HCM may have a variety of systolic murmurs, the 2 most common are those related to outflow tract obstruction and mitral regurgitation caused by systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve.⁴ The systolic murmur associated with significant LVOT obstruction has been described as a harsh, crescendo-decrescendo type that begins just after S1 and is heard best at the apex and lower left sternal border.⁴ It may radiate to the axilla and base but not generally into the neck. The murmur usually increases with Valsalva maneuver and decreases with handgrip or going from a standing to a sitting/ squatting position. The initial examination of the patient in this case was not suggestive of HOCM, as confirmed by 2 practitioners (a cardiologist and an internist), each with > 30 years of clinical experience. This may have been related to the patient’s hydration status at the time, with Valsalva maneuver increasing obstruction to the point of reduced flow.

About 90% of patients with HCM will have abnormalities on ECG, most commonly LV hypertrophy with a strain pattern. Other ECG findings include: (1) prominent abnormal Q waves, particularly in the inferior (II, III, and aVF) and lateral leads (I, aVL, and V4-V6), reflecting depolarization of a hypertrophied septum; (2) left axis deviation; (3) deeply inverted T waves in leads V2 through V4; and (4) P wave abnormalities indicative of left atrial (LA) or biatrial enlargement. ⁸ It is notable that the patient in this case had a normal ECG, given that a minority of patients with HCM have been shown to have a normal ECG.⁹

Echocardiography plays an important role in diagnosing HCM. Diagnostic criteria include the presence of asymmetric hypertrophy (most commonly with anterior septal involvement), systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve, a nondilated LV cavity, septal immobility, and premature closure of the aortic valve. LV thickness is measured at both the septum and free wall; values ≥ 15 mm, with a septal-to-free wall thickness ratio of ≥ 1.3, are suggestive of HCM. Asymmetric LV hypertrophy can also be seen in other segments besides the septum, such as the apex.¹⁰

HCM/HOCM is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people. The condition also contributes to significant functional morbidity due to heart failure and increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke. Treatments tend to focus on symptom relief and slowing disease progression and include the use of medications such as Β—blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and the myosin inhibitor mavacamten.¹¹ Select patients, such as those with severe LVOT obstruction and symptoms despite treatment with Β—blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, may be offered septal myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation, coupled with insertion of an implantable cardiac defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients at high arrhythmic risk.^1,12

Patients with HCM, particularly those with LVOT obstruction, pose distinct challenges to the anesthesiologist because they are highly sensitive to decreases in preload and afterload. These patients frequently experience adverse perioperative events such as myocardial ischemia, systemic hypotension, and supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. Acute congestive heart failure may also occur, presumably due to concomitant diastolic dysfunction. Patients with previously unrecognized HCM are of particular concern, as they may manifest unexpected and sudden hypotension with the induction of anesthesia. There may then be a paradoxical response to vasoactive drugs and anesthetic agents, which accentuate LVOT obstruction. In these circumstances, undiagnosed HCM should be considered, and intraoperative rescue transesophageal echocardiography be performed.¹³ Once the diagnosis is confirmed, efforts should be made to reduce myocardial contractility and sympathetic discharge (eg, with Β—blockers), increase afterload (eg, with α1 agonists), and improve preload with adequate hydration. Proper resuscitation of hypotensive patients with HCM requires a thorough understanding of disease pathology, as effective interventions may seem to be counterintuitive. Inotropic agents such as epinephrine are contraindicated in HCM because increased inotropy and chronotropy worsen LVOT obstruction. Volume status is often tenuous; while adequate preload is important, overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may promote heart failure. It is important to keep in mind that even patients without resting LVOT obstruction may develop dynamic obstruction with anesthesia induction due to sudden reductions in preload and afterload. It is also important to note that the degree of LV hypertrophy is directly correlated with arrhythmic sudden death. Those patients with LV wall thickness ≥ 30 mm are at increased risk for potentially lethal tachyarrhythmias in the operating room.¹⁴

These considerations reinforce the need for proper preoperative identification of patients with HCM. Heightened awareness is key, given the fact that HCM is relatively common and tends to be underdiagnosed in the general population. These patients are generally young, otherwise healthy, and often undergo minor operative procedures in outpatient settings. It is incumbent upon the preoperative evaluator to take a thorough medical history and perform a careful physical examination. Clues to the diagnosis include exertional dyspnea, fatigue, angina, syncope/presyncope, or a family history of sudden cardiac death or HCM. A systolic ejection murmur, particularly one that increases with standing or Valsalva maneuver, and decreases with squatting or handgrip may also raise clinical suspicion. These patients should undergo a full cardiac evaluation, including echocardiography.

CONCLUSIONS

HCM is a common condition that is important to diagnose in the preoperative clinic. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic complications during induction of anesthesia due to the sudden reduction in preload and afterload, which may cause a significant increase in LVOT obstruction. A high index of suspicion is essential, as clinical diagnosis can be challenging. The physical examination may be deceiving and symptoms are often subtle and nonspecific. It is imperative to alert the anesthesiologist before surgery so the complex hemodynamic management of patients with HOCM can be appropriately managed.

You could be forgiven if you are confused about how blood pressure (BP) affects dementia. First, you read an article extolling the benefits of BP lowering, then a study about how stopping antihypertensives slows cognitive decline in nursing home residents. It’s enough to make you lose your mind.

The Brain Benefits of BP Lowering

It should be stated unequivocally that you should absolutely treat high BP. It may have once been acceptable to state, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.” But those dark days are long behind us.

In these divided times, at least we can agree that we should treat high BP. The cardiovascular (CV) benefits, in and of themselves, justify the decision. But BP’s relationship with dementia is more complex. There are different types of dementia even though we tend to lump them all into one category. Vascular dementia is driven by the same pathophysiology and risk factors as cardiac disease. It’s intuitive that treating hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and smoking will decrease the risk for stroke and limit the damage to the brain that we see with repeated vascular insults. For Alzheimer’s disease, high BP and other CV risk factors seem to increase the risk even if the mechanism is not fully elucidated.

Estimates suggest that if we could lower the prevalence of hypertension by 25%, there would be 160,000 fewer cases of Alzheimer’s disease. But the data are not as robust as one might hope. A 2021 Cochrane review found that hypertension treatment slowed cognitive decline, but the quality of the evidence was low. Short duration of follow-up, dropouts, crossovers, and other problems with the data precluded any certainty. What’s more, hypertension in midlife is associated with cognitive decline and dementia, but its impact in those over age 70 is less clear. Later in life, or once cognitive impairment has already developed, it may be too late for BP lowering to have any impact.

 

Potential Harms of Lowering BP

All this needs to be weighed against the potential harms of treating hypertension. I will reiterate that hypertension should be treated and treated aggressively for the prevention of CV events. But overtreatment, especially in older patients, is associated with hypotension, falls, and syncope. Older patients are also at risk for polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions. 

When it comes to dementia, there is also a concern that overtreating high BP could make things worse. Hypotension and decreased cerebral perfusion could hasten cognitive decline by depriving the brain of that all too necessary oxygen. 

A Korean nationwide survey showed a U-shaped association between BP and Alzheimer’s disease risk in adults (mean age, 67 years), with both high and low BPs associated with a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Though not all studies agree. A post hoc analysis of SPRINT MIND did not find any negative impact of intensive BP lowering on cognitive outcomes or cerebral perfusion in older adults (mean age, 68 years). But it didn’t do much good either. Given the heterogeneity of the data, doubts remain on whether aggressive BP lowering might be detrimental in older patients with comorbidities and preexisting dementia. The obvious corollary then is whether deprescribing hypertensive medications could be beneficial.

A recent publication in JAMA Internal Medicine attempted to address this very question. The cohort study used data from Veterans Affairs nursing home residents (mean age, 78 years) to emulate a randomized trial on deprescribing antihypertensives and cognitive decline. Many of the residents’ cognitive scores worsened over the course of follow-up; however, the decline was less pronounced in the deprescribing group (10% vs 12%). The same group did a similar analysis looking at CV outcomes and found no increased risk for heart attack or stroke with deprescribing BP medications. Taken together, these nursing home data suggest that deprescribing may help slow cognitive decline without the expected trade-off of increased CV events.

 

Deprescribing, Yes or No? 

However, randomized data would obviously be preferable, and these are in short supply. One such trial, the DANTE study, found no benefit to deprescribing in terms of cognition in adults aged 75 years or older with mild cognitive impairment. The study follow-up was only 16 weeks, however, which is hardly enough time to demonstrate any effect, positive or negative. The most that can be said is that it didn’t cause many short-term adverse events.

Perhaps the best conclusion to draw from this somewhat underwhelming collection of data is that lowering high BP is important, but less important the closer we get to the end of life. Hypotension is obviously bad, and overly aggressive BP lowering is going to lead to negative outcomes in older adults because gravity is an unforgiving mistress. 

Deprescribing antihypertensives in older adults is probably not going to cause major negative outcomes, but whether it will do much good in nonhypotensive patients is debatable. The bigger problem is the millions of people with undiagnosed or undertreated hypertension. We would probably have less dementia if we treated hypertension when it does the most good: as a primary-prevention strategy in midlife.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

You could be forgiven if you are confused about how blood pressure (BP) affects dementia. First, you read an article extolling the benefits of BP lowering, then a study about how stopping antihypertensives slows cognitive decline in nursing home residents. It’s enough to make you lose your mind.

The Brain Benefits of BP Lowering

It should be stated unequivocally that you should absolutely treat high BP. It may have once been acceptable to state, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.” But those dark days are long behind us.

In these divided times, at least we can agree that we should treat high BP. The cardiovascular (CV) benefits, in and of themselves, justify the decision. But BP’s relationship with dementia is more complex. There are different types of dementia even though we tend to lump them all into one category. Vascular dementia is driven by the same pathophysiology and risk factors as cardiac disease. It’s intuitive that treating hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and smoking will decrease the risk for stroke and limit the damage to the brain that we see with repeated vascular insults. For Alzheimer’s disease, high BP and other CV risk factors seem to increase the risk even if the mechanism is not fully elucidated.

Estimates suggest that if we could lower the prevalence of hypertension by 25%, there would be 160,000 fewer cases of Alzheimer’s disease. But the data are not as robust as one might hope. A 2021 Cochrane review found that hypertension treatment slowed cognitive decline, but the quality of the evidence was low. Short duration of follow-up, dropouts, crossovers, and other problems with the data precluded any certainty. What’s more, hypertension in midlife is associated with cognitive decline and dementia, but its impact in those over age 70 is less clear. Later in life, or once cognitive impairment has already developed, it may be too late for BP lowering to have any impact.

 

Potential Harms of Lowering BP

All this needs to be weighed against the potential harms of treating hypertension. I will reiterate that hypertension should be treated and treated aggressively for the prevention of CV events. But overtreatment, especially in older patients, is associated with hypotension, falls, and syncope. Older patients are also at risk for polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions. 

When it comes to dementia, there is also a concern that overtreating high BP could make things worse. Hypotension and decreased cerebral perfusion could hasten cognitive decline by depriving the brain of that all too necessary oxygen. 

A Korean nationwide survey showed a U-shaped association between BP and Alzheimer’s disease risk in adults (mean age, 67 years), with both high and low BPs associated with a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Though not all studies agree. A post hoc analysis of SPRINT MIND did not find any negative impact of intensive BP lowering on cognitive outcomes or cerebral perfusion in older adults (mean age, 68 years). But it didn’t do much good either. Given the heterogeneity of the data, doubts remain on whether aggressive BP lowering might be detrimental in older patients with comorbidities and preexisting dementia. The obvious corollary then is whether deprescribing hypertensive medications could be beneficial.

A recent publication in JAMA Internal Medicine attempted to address this very question. The cohort study used data from Veterans Affairs nursing home residents (mean age, 78 years) to emulate a randomized trial on deprescribing antihypertensives and cognitive decline. Many of the residents’ cognitive scores worsened over the course of follow-up; however, the decline was less pronounced in the deprescribing group (10% vs 12%). The same group did a similar analysis looking at CV outcomes and found no increased risk for heart attack or stroke with deprescribing BP medications. Taken together, these nursing home data suggest that deprescribing may help slow cognitive decline without the expected trade-off of increased CV events.

 

Deprescribing, Yes or No? 

However, randomized data would obviously be preferable, and these are in short supply. One such trial, the DANTE study, found no benefit to deprescribing in terms of cognition in adults aged 75 years or older with mild cognitive impairment. The study follow-up was only 16 weeks, however, which is hardly enough time to demonstrate any effect, positive or negative. The most that can be said is that it didn’t cause many short-term adverse events.

Perhaps the best conclusion to draw from this somewhat underwhelming collection of data is that lowering high BP is important, but less important the closer we get to the end of life. Hypotension is obviously bad, and overly aggressive BP lowering is going to lead to negative outcomes in older adults because gravity is an unforgiving mistress. 

Deprescribing antihypertensives in older adults is probably not going to cause major negative outcomes, but whether it will do much good in nonhypotensive patients is debatable. The bigger problem is the millions of people with undiagnosed or undertreated hypertension. We would probably have less dementia if we treated hypertension when it does the most good: as a primary-prevention strategy in midlife.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

You could be forgiven if you are confused about how blood pressure (BP) affects dementia. First, you read an article extolling the benefits of BP lowering, then a study about how stopping antihypertensives slows cognitive decline in nursing home residents. It’s enough to make you lose your mind.

The Brain Benefits of BP Lowering

It should be stated unequivocally that you should absolutely treat high BP. It may have once been acceptable to state, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.” But those dark days are long behind us.

In these divided times, at least we can agree that we should treat high BP. The cardiovascular (CV) benefits, in and of themselves, justify the decision. But BP’s relationship with dementia is more complex. There are different types of dementia even though we tend to lump them all into one category. Vascular dementia is driven by the same pathophysiology and risk factors as cardiac disease. It’s intuitive that treating hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and smoking will decrease the risk for stroke and limit the damage to the brain that we see with repeated vascular insults. For Alzheimer’s disease, high BP and other CV risk factors seem to increase the risk even if the mechanism is not fully elucidated.

Estimates suggest that if we could lower the prevalence of hypertension by 25%, there would be 160,000 fewer cases of Alzheimer’s disease. But the data are not as robust as one might hope. A 2021 Cochrane review found that hypertension treatment slowed cognitive decline, but the quality of the evidence was low. Short duration of follow-up, dropouts, crossovers, and other problems with the data precluded any certainty. What’s more, hypertension in midlife is associated with cognitive decline and dementia, but its impact in those over age 70 is less clear. Later in life, or once cognitive impairment has already developed, it may be too late for BP lowering to have any impact.

 

Potential Harms of Lowering BP

All this needs to be weighed against the potential harms of treating hypertension. I will reiterate that hypertension should be treated and treated aggressively for the prevention of CV events. But overtreatment, especially in older patients, is associated with hypotension, falls, and syncope. Older patients are also at risk for polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions. 

When it comes to dementia, there is also a concern that overtreating high BP could make things worse. Hypotension and decreased cerebral perfusion could hasten cognitive decline by depriving the brain of that all too necessary oxygen. 

A Korean nationwide survey showed a U-shaped association between BP and Alzheimer’s disease risk in adults (mean age, 67 years), with both high and low BPs associated with a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Though not all studies agree. A post hoc analysis of SPRINT MIND did not find any negative impact of intensive BP lowering on cognitive outcomes or cerebral perfusion in older adults (mean age, 68 years). But it didn’t do much good either. Given the heterogeneity of the data, doubts remain on whether aggressive BP lowering might be detrimental in older patients with comorbidities and preexisting dementia. The obvious corollary then is whether deprescribing hypertensive medications could be beneficial.

A recent publication in JAMA Internal Medicine attempted to address this very question. The cohort study used data from Veterans Affairs nursing home residents (mean age, 78 years) to emulate a randomized trial on deprescribing antihypertensives and cognitive decline. Many of the residents’ cognitive scores worsened over the course of follow-up; however, the decline was less pronounced in the deprescribing group (10% vs 12%). The same group did a similar analysis looking at CV outcomes and found no increased risk for heart attack or stroke with deprescribing BP medications. Taken together, these nursing home data suggest that deprescribing may help slow cognitive decline without the expected trade-off of increased CV events.

 

Deprescribing, Yes or No? 

However, randomized data would obviously be preferable, and these are in short supply. One such trial, the DANTE study, found no benefit to deprescribing in terms of cognition in adults aged 75 years or older with mild cognitive impairment. The study follow-up was only 16 weeks, however, which is hardly enough time to demonstrate any effect, positive or negative. The most that can be said is that it didn’t cause many short-term adverse events.

Perhaps the best conclusion to draw from this somewhat underwhelming collection of data is that lowering high BP is important, but less important the closer we get to the end of life. Hypotension is obviously bad, and overly aggressive BP lowering is going to lead to negative outcomes in older adults because gravity is an unforgiving mistress. 

Deprescribing antihypertensives in older adults is probably not going to cause major negative outcomes, but whether it will do much good in nonhypotensive patients is debatable. The bigger problem is the millions of people with undiagnosed or undertreated hypertension. We would probably have less dementia if we treated hypertension when it does the most good: as a primary-prevention strategy in midlife.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are associated with an increased risk for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study also identified a potential novel single-nucleotide polymorphism linked to an elevated risk for the retina condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis using data from the All of Us research program to assess the association between lipoprotein and the risk for AMD.
• They analyzed data from 2328 patients with AMD (mean age, 75.5 years; 46.7% women; 84.2% White individuals) and 5028 matched controls (mean age, 75.6 years; 52.5% women; 82.9% White individuals).
• Data were extracted for smoking status, history of hyperlipidemia, use of statins (categorized as hepatically and non-hepatically metabolized), and laboratory values for total triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and HDL levels.
• Data for single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with the dysregulation of LDL and HDL metabolism were extracted using the PLINK toolkit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both high and low HDL levels were associated with an increased risk for AMD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28 for both; both P < .001), whereas low and high levels of triglyceride and LDL did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk for AMD.
• A history of smoking and statin use showed significant associations with an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.30 and 1.36, respectively; both P < .001).
• Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes associated with HDL metabolism, ABCA1 and LIPC, were negatively associated with the risk for AMD (aOR, 0.88; P = .04 and aOR, 0.86; P = .001, respectively).
• Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a) was identified as a novel single nucleotide polymorphism linked to an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.37; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite conflicting evidence regarding the relationship with elevated HDL and AMD risk, this is to our knowledge the first time a U-shaped relationship with low and high HDL and AMD has been described. In fact, the presence of a U-shaped relationship may explain inconsistency in prior analyses comparing mean HDL levels in AMD and control populations,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jimmy S. Chen, MD, of the Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute at the University of California, San Diego. It was published online on January 3, 2025, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the retrospective collection and analysis of data. The use of billing codes for diagnosis extraction may have introduced documentation inaccuracies. The subgroup analysis by severity of AMD was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors was funded by grants from the National Eye Institute (NEI), Research to Prevent Blindness Career Development Award, Robert Machemer MD and International Retinal Research Foundation, and the UC San Diego Academic Senate. Another author reported receiving a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, while a third author received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NEI, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The All of Us Research Program was supported by grants from the NIH and other sources. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are associated with an increased risk for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study also identified a potential novel single-nucleotide polymorphism linked to an elevated risk for the retina condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis using data from the All of Us research program to assess the association between lipoprotein and the risk for AMD.
• They analyzed data from 2328 patients with AMD (mean age, 75.5 years; 46.7% women; 84.2% White individuals) and 5028 matched controls (mean age, 75.6 years; 52.5% women; 82.9% White individuals).
• Data were extracted for smoking status, history of hyperlipidemia, use of statins (categorized as hepatically and non-hepatically metabolized), and laboratory values for total triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and HDL levels.
• Data for single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with the dysregulation of LDL and HDL metabolism were extracted using the PLINK toolkit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both high and low HDL levels were associated with an increased risk for AMD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28 for both; both P < .001), whereas low and high levels of triglyceride and LDL did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk for AMD.
• A history of smoking and statin use showed significant associations with an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.30 and 1.36, respectively; both P < .001).
• Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes associated with HDL metabolism, ABCA1 and LIPC, were negatively associated with the risk for AMD (aOR, 0.88; P = .04 and aOR, 0.86; P = .001, respectively).
• Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a) was identified as a novel single nucleotide polymorphism linked to an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.37; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite conflicting evidence regarding the relationship with elevated HDL and AMD risk, this is to our knowledge the first time a U-shaped relationship with low and high HDL and AMD has been described. In fact, the presence of a U-shaped relationship may explain inconsistency in prior analyses comparing mean HDL levels in AMD and control populations,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jimmy S. Chen, MD, of the Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute at the University of California, San Diego. It was published online on January 3, 2025, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the retrospective collection and analysis of data. The use of billing codes for diagnosis extraction may have introduced documentation inaccuracies. The subgroup analysis by severity of AMD was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors was funded by grants from the National Eye Institute (NEI), Research to Prevent Blindness Career Development Award, Robert Machemer MD and International Retinal Research Foundation, and the UC San Diego Academic Senate. Another author reported receiving a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, while a third author received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NEI, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The All of Us Research Program was supported by grants from the NIH and other sources. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are associated with an increased risk for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study also identified a potential novel single-nucleotide polymorphism linked to an elevated risk for the retina condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis using data from the All of Us research program to assess the association between lipoprotein and the risk for AMD.
• They analyzed data from 2328 patients with AMD (mean age, 75.5 years; 46.7% women; 84.2% White individuals) and 5028 matched controls (mean age, 75.6 years; 52.5% women; 82.9% White individuals).
• Data were extracted for smoking status, history of hyperlipidemia, use of statins (categorized as hepatically and non-hepatically metabolized), and laboratory values for total triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and HDL levels.
• Data for single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with the dysregulation of LDL and HDL metabolism were extracted using the PLINK toolkit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both high and low HDL levels were associated with an increased risk for AMD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28 for both; both P < .001), whereas low and high levels of triglyceride and LDL did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk for AMD.
• A history of smoking and statin use showed significant associations with an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.30 and 1.36, respectively; both P < .001).
• Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes associated with HDL metabolism, ABCA1 and LIPC, were negatively associated with the risk for AMD (aOR, 0.88; P = .04 and aOR, 0.86; P = .001, respectively).
• Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a) was identified as a novel single nucleotide polymorphism linked to an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.37; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite conflicting evidence regarding the relationship with elevated HDL and AMD risk, this is to our knowledge the first time a U-shaped relationship with low and high HDL and AMD has been described. In fact, the presence of a U-shaped relationship may explain inconsistency in prior analyses comparing mean HDL levels in AMD and control populations,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jimmy S. Chen, MD, of the Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute at the University of California, San Diego. It was published online on January 3, 2025, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the retrospective collection and analysis of data. The use of billing codes for diagnosis extraction may have introduced documentation inaccuracies. The subgroup analysis by severity of AMD was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors was funded by grants from the National Eye Institute (NEI), Research to Prevent Blindness Career Development Award, Robert Machemer MD and International Retinal Research Foundation, and the UC San Diego Academic Senate. Another author reported receiving a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, while a third author received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NEI, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The All of Us Research Program was supported by grants from the NIH and other sources. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.