Cardiology

In a study of adults, an increase of 1 g in estimated 24-hour urinary sodium excretion was associated with 11% higher odds of an atopic dermatitis (AD) diagnosis, 16% higher odds of having active AD, and 11% higher odds of increased severity of AD.

Those are key findings from a cross-sectional analysis of data from the United Kingdom.

“Excessive dietary sodium, common in fast food, may be associated with AD,” corresponding author Katrina Abuabara, MD, MA, MSCE, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. They referred to recent research using sodium MRI, which showed that “the majority of the body’s exchangeable sodium is stored in the skin and that skin sodium is associated with autoimmune and chronic inflammatory conditions, including AD.” And in another study published in 2019, lesional skin sodium was 30-fold greater in patients with AD than in healthy controls.

To investigate whether there is an association between higher levels of sodium consumption and AD prevalence, activity, and severity at the population level, Dr. Abuabara, of the program for clinical research in the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors drew from the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of more than 500,000 individuals aged 37-73 years at the time of recruitment by the National Health Service. The primary exposure was 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, which was calculated by using the INTERSALT equation, a sex-specific estimation that incorporates body mass index; age; and urine concentrations of potassium, sodium, and creatinine. The primary study outcome was AD or active AD based on diagnostic and prescription codes from linked electronic medical records. The researchers used multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, Townsend deprivation index, and education to measure the association.

Of the 215,832 Biobank participants included in the analysis, 54% were female, their mean age was 57 years, 95% were White, their mean estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was 3.01 g/day, and 10,839 (5%) had a diagnosis of AD. The researchers observed that on multivariable logistic regression, a 1-g increase in estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was associated with increased odds of AD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14), increased odds of active AD (AOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and increased odds of increasing severity of AD (AOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15).
 

Validating Results With US Data

To validate the findings, the researchers evaluated a cohort of 13,014 participants from the US-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using pooled data from the 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004 samples. Of the 13,014 participants, 796 reported current AD, and 1493 reported AD in the past year. The mean dietary sodium intake of overall NHANES participants estimated with 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires was 3.45 g, with a mean of 3.47 g for those with current AD and a mean of 3.44 g for those without AD.

The researchers observed that a 1-g/day higher dietary sodium intake was associated with a higher risk for current AD (AOR, 1.22; 95%CI, 1.01-1.47) and a somewhat higher risk for AD in the past year (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35).

“Future work should examine whether variation of sodium intake over time might trigger AD flares and whether it helps to explain heterogeneity in response to new immunomodulatory treatments for AD,” the authors wrote. “Reduced sodium intake was recommended as a treatment for AD more than a century ago, but there have yet to be studies examining the association of dietary sodium reduction with skin sodium concentration or AD severity,” they added. Noting that sodium reduction “has been shown to be a cost-effective intervention for hypertension and other cardiovascular disease outcomes,” they said that their data “support experimental studies of this approach in AD.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a single spot urine sample was used in the UK Biobank cohort, “which only captures dietary intake of the last 24 hours and is not the best measure of usual or long-term intake of sodium.” They also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations and that AD was based on self-report in the NHANES validation cohort.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, said the study by Dr. Abuabara and colleagues “gives us another reason to avoid salt, showing that 1 g/day of higher salt intake increases the risk of AD in an adult population and more severe AD.”

He added that, “Now, can you say that reducing salt intake will have a therapeutic effect or clinically relevant impact? No. [That is] certainly worth exploring but at a minimum, gives some more credibility to keeping it bland.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Medical Student in Aging Research Program, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Eczema Association. Dr. Abuabara reported receiving research funding for her institution from Pfizer and Cosmetique Internacional/La Roche-Posay and consulting fees from Target RWE, Sanofi, Nektar, and Amgen. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Friedman had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a study of adults, an increase of 1 g in estimated 24-hour urinary sodium excretion was associated with 11% higher odds of an atopic dermatitis (AD) diagnosis, 16% higher odds of having active AD, and 11% higher odds of increased severity of AD.

Those are key findings from a cross-sectional analysis of data from the United Kingdom.

“Excessive dietary sodium, common in fast food, may be associated with AD,” corresponding author Katrina Abuabara, MD, MA, MSCE, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. They referred to recent research using sodium MRI, which showed that “the majority of the body’s exchangeable sodium is stored in the skin and that skin sodium is associated with autoimmune and chronic inflammatory conditions, including AD.” And in another study published in 2019, lesional skin sodium was 30-fold greater in patients with AD than in healthy controls.

To investigate whether there is an association between higher levels of sodium consumption and AD prevalence, activity, and severity at the population level, Dr. Abuabara, of the program for clinical research in the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors drew from the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of more than 500,000 individuals aged 37-73 years at the time of recruitment by the National Health Service. The primary exposure was 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, which was calculated by using the INTERSALT equation, a sex-specific estimation that incorporates body mass index; age; and urine concentrations of potassium, sodium, and creatinine. The primary study outcome was AD or active AD based on diagnostic and prescription codes from linked electronic medical records. The researchers used multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, Townsend deprivation index, and education to measure the association.

Of the 215,832 Biobank participants included in the analysis, 54% were female, their mean age was 57 years, 95% were White, their mean estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was 3.01 g/day, and 10,839 (5%) had a diagnosis of AD. The researchers observed that on multivariable logistic regression, a 1-g increase in estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was associated with increased odds of AD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14), increased odds of active AD (AOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and increased odds of increasing severity of AD (AOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15).
 

Validating Results With US Data

To validate the findings, the researchers evaluated a cohort of 13,014 participants from the US-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using pooled data from the 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004 samples. Of the 13,014 participants, 796 reported current AD, and 1493 reported AD in the past year. The mean dietary sodium intake of overall NHANES participants estimated with 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires was 3.45 g, with a mean of 3.47 g for those with current AD and a mean of 3.44 g for those without AD.

The researchers observed that a 1-g/day higher dietary sodium intake was associated with a higher risk for current AD (AOR, 1.22; 95%CI, 1.01-1.47) and a somewhat higher risk for AD in the past year (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35).

“Future work should examine whether variation of sodium intake over time might trigger AD flares and whether it helps to explain heterogeneity in response to new immunomodulatory treatments for AD,” the authors wrote. “Reduced sodium intake was recommended as a treatment for AD more than a century ago, but there have yet to be studies examining the association of dietary sodium reduction with skin sodium concentration or AD severity,” they added. Noting that sodium reduction “has been shown to be a cost-effective intervention for hypertension and other cardiovascular disease outcomes,” they said that their data “support experimental studies of this approach in AD.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a single spot urine sample was used in the UK Biobank cohort, “which only captures dietary intake of the last 24 hours and is not the best measure of usual or long-term intake of sodium.” They also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations and that AD was based on self-report in the NHANES validation cohort.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, said the study by Dr. Abuabara and colleagues “gives us another reason to avoid salt, showing that 1 g/day of higher salt intake increases the risk of AD in an adult population and more severe AD.”

He added that, “Now, can you say that reducing salt intake will have a therapeutic effect or clinically relevant impact? No. [That is] certainly worth exploring but at a minimum, gives some more credibility to keeping it bland.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Medical Student in Aging Research Program, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Eczema Association. Dr. Abuabara reported receiving research funding for her institution from Pfizer and Cosmetique Internacional/La Roche-Posay and consulting fees from Target RWE, Sanofi, Nektar, and Amgen. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Friedman had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a study of adults, an increase of 1 g in estimated 24-hour urinary sodium excretion was associated with 11% higher odds of an atopic dermatitis (AD) diagnosis, 16% higher odds of having active AD, and 11% higher odds of increased severity of AD.

Those are key findings from a cross-sectional analysis of data from the United Kingdom.

“Excessive dietary sodium, common in fast food, may be associated with AD,” corresponding author Katrina Abuabara, MD, MA, MSCE, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. They referred to recent research using sodium MRI, which showed that “the majority of the body’s exchangeable sodium is stored in the skin and that skin sodium is associated with autoimmune and chronic inflammatory conditions, including AD.” And in another study published in 2019, lesional skin sodium was 30-fold greater in patients with AD than in healthy controls.

To investigate whether there is an association between higher levels of sodium consumption and AD prevalence, activity, and severity at the population level, Dr. Abuabara, of the program for clinical research in the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors drew from the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of more than 500,000 individuals aged 37-73 years at the time of recruitment by the National Health Service. The primary exposure was 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, which was calculated by using the INTERSALT equation, a sex-specific estimation that incorporates body mass index; age; and urine concentrations of potassium, sodium, and creatinine. The primary study outcome was AD or active AD based on diagnostic and prescription codes from linked electronic medical records. The researchers used multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, Townsend deprivation index, and education to measure the association.

Of the 215,832 Biobank participants included in the analysis, 54% were female, their mean age was 57 years, 95% were White, their mean estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was 3.01 g/day, and 10,839 (5%) had a diagnosis of AD. The researchers observed that on multivariable logistic regression, a 1-g increase in estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was associated with increased odds of AD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14), increased odds of active AD (AOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and increased odds of increasing severity of AD (AOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15).
 

Validating Results With US Data

To validate the findings, the researchers evaluated a cohort of 13,014 participants from the US-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using pooled data from the 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004 samples. Of the 13,014 participants, 796 reported current AD, and 1493 reported AD in the past year. The mean dietary sodium intake of overall NHANES participants estimated with 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires was 3.45 g, with a mean of 3.47 g for those with current AD and a mean of 3.44 g for those without AD.

The researchers observed that a 1-g/day higher dietary sodium intake was associated with a higher risk for current AD (AOR, 1.22; 95%CI, 1.01-1.47) and a somewhat higher risk for AD in the past year (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35).

“Future work should examine whether variation of sodium intake over time might trigger AD flares and whether it helps to explain heterogeneity in response to new immunomodulatory treatments for AD,” the authors wrote. “Reduced sodium intake was recommended as a treatment for AD more than a century ago, but there have yet to be studies examining the association of dietary sodium reduction with skin sodium concentration or AD severity,” they added. Noting that sodium reduction “has been shown to be a cost-effective intervention for hypertension and other cardiovascular disease outcomes,” they said that their data “support experimental studies of this approach in AD.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a single spot urine sample was used in the UK Biobank cohort, “which only captures dietary intake of the last 24 hours and is not the best measure of usual or long-term intake of sodium.” They also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations and that AD was based on self-report in the NHANES validation cohort.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, said the study by Dr. Abuabara and colleagues “gives us another reason to avoid salt, showing that 1 g/day of higher salt intake increases the risk of AD in an adult population and more severe AD.”

He added that, “Now, can you say that reducing salt intake will have a therapeutic effect or clinically relevant impact? No. [That is] certainly worth exploring but at a minimum, gives some more credibility to keeping it bland.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Medical Student in Aging Research Program, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Eczema Association. Dr. Abuabara reported receiving research funding for her institution from Pfizer and Cosmetique Internacional/La Roche-Posay and consulting fees from Target RWE, Sanofi, Nektar, and Amgen. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Friedman had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in the British Medical Journal on the regular use of omega-3 fish oil supplements and the course of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

This is an observational study from the large-scale UK Biobank. The authors divided the participants into those with and those without CVD. In participants without CVD at baseline, those using fish oil supplements regularly had an increased incidence of both atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke, whereas those with prevalent CVD had a reduction in the progression to major adverse cardiovascular events, which offset any increase in the risk for AF.

Observational studies of omega-3 supplements have potential limitations and confounding, and correlation in these studies does not prove causation. What do the randomized clinical trials of omega-3 supplements show? At least seven randomized trials have looked at AF. A meta-analysis published in Circulation in 2021 showed a dose-response relationship. In trials testing > 1 g/d of marine omega-3 fatty acids, there was close to a 50% overall increase in risk for AF. In studies testing lower doses, there was a very modest 12% increase and a significant dose-response gradient.

For the relationship between omega-3 supplements and major cardiovascular events, at least 15 individual randomized trials have been conducted. There actually have been more meta-analyses of these randomized trials than individual trials. The meta-analyses tend to show a significant reduction of coronary events with omega-3 supplementation, but no reduction in stroke. This is true in both primary and secondary prevention trials.

The one exception to this finding is the REDUCE-IT trial testing high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (4 g/day of icosapent ethyl), and there was a 25%-30% reduction in both cardiovascular events and stroke. But there has been some criticism of the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT trial that it may have had adverse effects on biomarkers and might have interfered with the absorption of statins in the placebo group. So, it will be important to have a replication trial of the high-dose EPA, findings in a trial using an inert placebo such as corn oil.

What should be done in the meantime? It’s important to think about prescription omega-3s vs over-the-counter fish oil. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved prescription omega-3 medications for several indications, including severely elevated triglyceride levels (> 500 mg/dL). In the REDUCE-IT trial, those who had moderate elevations of triglycerides (≥ 150 mg/dL) or prevalent CVD or diabetes, plus two additional risk factors, were also considered to have indications based on the FDA labeling for icosapent ethyl.

What about patients who don’t meet these criteria for prescription omega-3s? In the VITAL trial (the large-scale primary prevention trial), there was a similar reduction in coronary events but no effect on stroke. Those who seemed to benefit the most in terms of at least 40% reduction in coronary events were participants who had low fish consumption at baseline, had two or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or were African American. 

Someone who rarely or never eats fish and has multiple risk factors for CVD, but doesn’t meet criteria for prescription omega-3 medication, may want to discuss with their clinician the use of over-the-counter fish oil supplements. But fish oil and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for healthy diet and healthy lifestyle. There is a national recommendation for one to two servings of fish per week. For those planning to take fish oil, it’s important to use reputable sources of the supplement, and check the bottle for a quality control seal. It’s also really important to avoid megadoses of fish oil, because high doses have been linked to an increased risk for AF and bleeding.

Dr. Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, disclosed ties with Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in the British Medical Journal on the regular use of omega-3 fish oil supplements and the course of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

This is an observational study from the large-scale UK Biobank. The authors divided the participants into those with and those without CVD. In participants without CVD at baseline, those using fish oil supplements regularly had an increased incidence of both atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke, whereas those with prevalent CVD had a reduction in the progression to major adverse cardiovascular events, which offset any increase in the risk for AF.

Observational studies of omega-3 supplements have potential limitations and confounding, and correlation in these studies does not prove causation. What do the randomized clinical trials of omega-3 supplements show? At least seven randomized trials have looked at AF. A meta-analysis published in Circulation in 2021 showed a dose-response relationship. In trials testing > 1 g/d of marine omega-3 fatty acids, there was close to a 50% overall increase in risk for AF. In studies testing lower doses, there was a very modest 12% increase and a significant dose-response gradient.

For the relationship between omega-3 supplements and major cardiovascular events, at least 15 individual randomized trials have been conducted. There actually have been more meta-analyses of these randomized trials than individual trials. The meta-analyses tend to show a significant reduction of coronary events with omega-3 supplementation, but no reduction in stroke. This is true in both primary and secondary prevention trials.

The one exception to this finding is the REDUCE-IT trial testing high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (4 g/day of icosapent ethyl), and there was a 25%-30% reduction in both cardiovascular events and stroke. But there has been some criticism of the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT trial that it may have had adverse effects on biomarkers and might have interfered with the absorption of statins in the placebo group. So, it will be important to have a replication trial of the high-dose EPA, findings in a trial using an inert placebo such as corn oil.

What should be done in the meantime? It’s important to think about prescription omega-3s vs over-the-counter fish oil. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved prescription omega-3 medications for several indications, including severely elevated triglyceride levels (> 500 mg/dL). In the REDUCE-IT trial, those who had moderate elevations of triglycerides (≥ 150 mg/dL) or prevalent CVD or diabetes, plus two additional risk factors, were also considered to have indications based on the FDA labeling for icosapent ethyl.

What about patients who don’t meet these criteria for prescription omega-3s? In the VITAL trial (the large-scale primary prevention trial), there was a similar reduction in coronary events but no effect on stroke. Those who seemed to benefit the most in terms of at least 40% reduction in coronary events were participants who had low fish consumption at baseline, had two or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or were African American. 

Someone who rarely or never eats fish and has multiple risk factors for CVD, but doesn’t meet criteria for prescription omega-3 medication, may want to discuss with their clinician the use of over-the-counter fish oil supplements. But fish oil and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for healthy diet and healthy lifestyle. There is a national recommendation for one to two servings of fish per week. For those planning to take fish oil, it’s important to use reputable sources of the supplement, and check the bottle for a quality control seal. It’s also really important to avoid megadoses of fish oil, because high doses have been linked to an increased risk for AF and bleeding.

Dr. Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, disclosed ties with Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in the British Medical Journal on the regular use of omega-3 fish oil supplements and the course of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

This is an observational study from the large-scale UK Biobank. The authors divided the participants into those with and those without CVD. In participants without CVD at baseline, those using fish oil supplements regularly had an increased incidence of both atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke, whereas those with prevalent CVD had a reduction in the progression to major adverse cardiovascular events, which offset any increase in the risk for AF.

Observational studies of omega-3 supplements have potential limitations and confounding, and correlation in these studies does not prove causation. What do the randomized clinical trials of omega-3 supplements show? At least seven randomized trials have looked at AF. A meta-analysis published in Circulation in 2021 showed a dose-response relationship. In trials testing > 1 g/d of marine omega-3 fatty acids, there was close to a 50% overall increase in risk for AF. In studies testing lower doses, there was a very modest 12% increase and a significant dose-response gradient.

For the relationship between omega-3 supplements and major cardiovascular events, at least 15 individual randomized trials have been conducted. There actually have been more meta-analyses of these randomized trials than individual trials. The meta-analyses tend to show a significant reduction of coronary events with omega-3 supplementation, but no reduction in stroke. This is true in both primary and secondary prevention trials.

The one exception to this finding is the REDUCE-IT trial testing high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (4 g/day of icosapent ethyl), and there was a 25%-30% reduction in both cardiovascular events and stroke. But there has been some criticism of the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT trial that it may have had adverse effects on biomarkers and might have interfered with the absorption of statins in the placebo group. So, it will be important to have a replication trial of the high-dose EPA, findings in a trial using an inert placebo such as corn oil.

What should be done in the meantime? It’s important to think about prescription omega-3s vs over-the-counter fish oil. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved prescription omega-3 medications for several indications, including severely elevated triglyceride levels (> 500 mg/dL). In the REDUCE-IT trial, those who had moderate elevations of triglycerides (≥ 150 mg/dL) or prevalent CVD or diabetes, plus two additional risk factors, were also considered to have indications based on the FDA labeling for icosapent ethyl.

What about patients who don’t meet these criteria for prescription omega-3s? In the VITAL trial (the large-scale primary prevention trial), there was a similar reduction in coronary events but no effect on stroke. Those who seemed to benefit the most in terms of at least 40% reduction in coronary events were participants who had low fish consumption at baseline, had two or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or were African American. 

Someone who rarely or never eats fish and has multiple risk factors for CVD, but doesn’t meet criteria for prescription omega-3 medication, may want to discuss with their clinician the use of over-the-counter fish oil supplements. But fish oil and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for healthy diet and healthy lifestyle. There is a national recommendation for one to two servings of fish per week. For those planning to take fish oil, it’s important to use reputable sources of the supplement, and check the bottle for a quality control seal. It’s also really important to avoid megadoses of fish oil, because high doses have been linked to an increased risk for AF and bleeding.

Dr. Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, disclosed ties with Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been much hyperbole since the presentation of results from the SELECT cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) at this year’s European Congress on Obesity, which led many to herald semaglutide as the “new statin.”

In the SELECT CVOT, participants with overweight or obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 27), established cardiovascular disease (CVD), and no history of type 2 diabetes were administered the injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) at a 2.4-mg dose weekly. Treatment resulted in a significant 20% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events (a composite endpoint comprising CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). Importantly, SELECT was a trial on secondary prevention of CVD. 

The CV benefits of semaglutide were notably independent of baseline weight or amount of weight lost. This suggests that the underlying driver of improved CV outcomes with semaglutide extends beyond simple reduction in obesity and perhaps indicates a direct effect on vasculature and reduction in atherosclerosis, although this remains unproven.
 

Not All Risk Reduction Is Equal 

Much of the sensationalist coverage in the lay press focused on the 20% relative risk reduction figure. This endpoint is often more impressive and headline-grabbing than the absolute risk reduction, which provides a clearer view of a treatment’s real-world impact.

In SELECT, the absolute risk reduction was 1.5 percentage points, which translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 67 over 34 months to prevent one primary outcome of a major adverse CV event.

Lower NNTs suggest more effective treatments because fewer people need to be treated to prevent one clinical event, such as the major adverse CV events used in SELECT.
 

Semaglutide vs Statins

How does the clinical effectiveness observed in the SELECT trial compare with that observed in statin trials when it comes to the secondary prevention of CVD?

The seminal 4S study published in 1994 explored the impact of simvastatin on all-cause mortality among people with previous myocardial infarction or angina and hyperlipidemia (mean baseline BMI, 26). After 5.4 years of follow-up, the trial was stopped early owing to a 3.3-percentage point absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality (NNT, 30; relative risk reduction, 28%). The NNT to prevent one death from CV causes was 31, and the NNT to prevent one major coronary event was lower, at 15.

Other statin secondary prevention trials, such as the LIPID and MIRACL studies, demonstrated similarly low NNTs.

So, you can see that the NNTs for statins in secondary prevention are much lower than with semaglutide in SELECT. Furthermore, the benefits of semaglutide in preventing CVD in people living with overweight/obesity have yet to be elucidated. 

In contrast, we already have published evidence showing the benefits of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, albeit with higher and more variable NNTs than in the statin secondary prevention studies. 

The benefits of statins are also postulated to extend beyond their impact on lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins have been suggested to have anti-inflammatory and plaque-stabilizing effects, among other pleiotropic benefits.

We also currently lack evidence for the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide for CV risk reduction. Assessing economic viability and use in health care systems, such as the UK’s National Health Service, involves comparing the cost of semaglutide against the health care savings from prevented CV events. Health economic studies are vital to determine whether the benefits justify the expense. In contrast, the cost-effectiveness of statins is well established, particularly for high-risk individuals.
 

Advantages of GLP-1s Should Not Be Overlooked

Of course, statins don’t provide the significant weight loss benefits of semaglutide. 

Additional data from SELECT presented at the 2024 European Congress on Obesity demonstrated that participants lost a mean of 10.2% body weight and 7.7 cm from their waist circumference after 4 years. Moreover, after 2 years, 12% of individuals randomized to semaglutide had returned to a normal BMI, and nearly half were no longer living with obesity.

Although the CV benefits of semaglutide were independent of weight reduction, this level of weight loss is clinically meaningful and will reduce the risk of many other cardiometabolic conditions including type 2 diabetes, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome, as well as improve low mood, depression, and overall quality of life. Additionally, obesity is now a risk factor for 13 different types of cancer, including bowel, breast, and pancreatic cancer, so facilitating a return to a healthier body weight will also mitigate future risk for cancer.
 

Sticking With Our Cornerstone Therapy, For Now

In conclusion, I do not believe that semaglutide is the “new statin.” Statins are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of CVD in a wide range of comorbidities, as evidenced in multiple large and high-quality trials dating back over 30 years.

However, there is no doubt that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is the most significant therapeutic advance for the management of obesity and comorbidities to date. 

The SELECT CVOT data uniquely position semaglutide as a secondary CVD prevention agent on top of guideline-driven management for people living with overweight/obesity and established CVD. Additionally, the clinically meaningful weight loss achieved with semaglutide will impact the risk of developing many other cardiometabolic conditions, as well as improve mental health and overall quality of life.

Dr. Fernando, GP Partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, creates concise clinical aide-mémoire for primary and secondary care to make life easier for health care professionals and ultimately to improve the lives of patients. He is very active on social media (X handle @drkevinfernando), where he posts hot topics in type 2 diabetes and CVRM. He recently has forayed into YouTube (@DrKevinFernando) and TikTok (@drkevinfernando) with patient-facing video content. Dr. Fernando has been elected to Fellowship of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the Academy of Medical Educators for his work in diabetes and medical education. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There has been much hyperbole since the presentation of results from the SELECT cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) at this year’s European Congress on Obesity, which led many to herald semaglutide as the “new statin.”

In the SELECT CVOT, participants with overweight or obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 27), established cardiovascular disease (CVD), and no history of type 2 diabetes were administered the injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) at a 2.4-mg dose weekly. Treatment resulted in a significant 20% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events (a composite endpoint comprising CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). Importantly, SELECT was a trial on secondary prevention of CVD. 

The CV benefits of semaglutide were notably independent of baseline weight or amount of weight lost. This suggests that the underlying driver of improved CV outcomes with semaglutide extends beyond simple reduction in obesity and perhaps indicates a direct effect on vasculature and reduction in atherosclerosis, although this remains unproven.
 

Not All Risk Reduction Is Equal 

Much of the sensationalist coverage in the lay press focused on the 20% relative risk reduction figure. This endpoint is often more impressive and headline-grabbing than the absolute risk reduction, which provides a clearer view of a treatment’s real-world impact.

In SELECT, the absolute risk reduction was 1.5 percentage points, which translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 67 over 34 months to prevent one primary outcome of a major adverse CV event.

Lower NNTs suggest more effective treatments because fewer people need to be treated to prevent one clinical event, such as the major adverse CV events used in SELECT.
 

Semaglutide vs Statins

How does the clinical effectiveness observed in the SELECT trial compare with that observed in statin trials when it comes to the secondary prevention of CVD?

The seminal 4S study published in 1994 explored the impact of simvastatin on all-cause mortality among people with previous myocardial infarction or angina and hyperlipidemia (mean baseline BMI, 26). After 5.4 years of follow-up, the trial was stopped early owing to a 3.3-percentage point absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality (NNT, 30; relative risk reduction, 28%). The NNT to prevent one death from CV causes was 31, and the NNT to prevent one major coronary event was lower, at 15.

Other statin secondary prevention trials, such as the LIPID and MIRACL studies, demonstrated similarly low NNTs.

So, you can see that the NNTs for statins in secondary prevention are much lower than with semaglutide in SELECT. Furthermore, the benefits of semaglutide in preventing CVD in people living with overweight/obesity have yet to be elucidated. 

In contrast, we already have published evidence showing the benefits of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, albeit with higher and more variable NNTs than in the statin secondary prevention studies. 

The benefits of statins are also postulated to extend beyond their impact on lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins have been suggested to have anti-inflammatory and plaque-stabilizing effects, among other pleiotropic benefits.

We also currently lack evidence for the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide for CV risk reduction. Assessing economic viability and use in health care systems, such as the UK’s National Health Service, involves comparing the cost of semaglutide against the health care savings from prevented CV events. Health economic studies are vital to determine whether the benefits justify the expense. In contrast, the cost-effectiveness of statins is well established, particularly for high-risk individuals.
 

Advantages of GLP-1s Should Not Be Overlooked

Of course, statins don’t provide the significant weight loss benefits of semaglutide. 

Additional data from SELECT presented at the 2024 European Congress on Obesity demonstrated that participants lost a mean of 10.2% body weight and 7.7 cm from their waist circumference after 4 years. Moreover, after 2 years, 12% of individuals randomized to semaglutide had returned to a normal BMI, and nearly half were no longer living with obesity.

Although the CV benefits of semaglutide were independent of weight reduction, this level of weight loss is clinically meaningful and will reduce the risk of many other cardiometabolic conditions including type 2 diabetes, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome, as well as improve low mood, depression, and overall quality of life. Additionally, obesity is now a risk factor for 13 different types of cancer, including bowel, breast, and pancreatic cancer, so facilitating a return to a healthier body weight will also mitigate future risk for cancer.
 

Sticking With Our Cornerstone Therapy, For Now

In conclusion, I do not believe that semaglutide is the “new statin.” Statins are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of CVD in a wide range of comorbidities, as evidenced in multiple large and high-quality trials dating back over 30 years.

However, there is no doubt that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is the most significant therapeutic advance for the management of obesity and comorbidities to date. 

The SELECT CVOT data uniquely position semaglutide as a secondary CVD prevention agent on top of guideline-driven management for people living with overweight/obesity and established CVD. Additionally, the clinically meaningful weight loss achieved with semaglutide will impact the risk of developing many other cardiometabolic conditions, as well as improve mental health and overall quality of life.

Dr. Fernando, GP Partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, creates concise clinical aide-mémoire for primary and secondary care to make life easier for health care professionals and ultimately to improve the lives of patients. He is very active on social media (X handle @drkevinfernando), where he posts hot topics in type 2 diabetes and CVRM. He recently has forayed into YouTube (@DrKevinFernando) and TikTok (@drkevinfernando) with patient-facing video content. Dr. Fernando has been elected to Fellowship of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the Academy of Medical Educators for his work in diabetes and medical education. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There has been much hyperbole since the presentation of results from the SELECT cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) at this year’s European Congress on Obesity, which led many to herald semaglutide as the “new statin.”

In the SELECT CVOT, participants with overweight or obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 27), established cardiovascular disease (CVD), and no history of type 2 diabetes were administered the injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) at a 2.4-mg dose weekly. Treatment resulted in a significant 20% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events (a composite endpoint comprising CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). Importantly, SELECT was a trial on secondary prevention of CVD. 

The CV benefits of semaglutide were notably independent of baseline weight or amount of weight lost. This suggests that the underlying driver of improved CV outcomes with semaglutide extends beyond simple reduction in obesity and perhaps indicates a direct effect on vasculature and reduction in atherosclerosis, although this remains unproven.
 

Not All Risk Reduction Is Equal 

Much of the sensationalist coverage in the lay press focused on the 20% relative risk reduction figure. This endpoint is often more impressive and headline-grabbing than the absolute risk reduction, which provides a clearer view of a treatment’s real-world impact.

In SELECT, the absolute risk reduction was 1.5 percentage points, which translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 67 over 34 months to prevent one primary outcome of a major adverse CV event.

Lower NNTs suggest more effective treatments because fewer people need to be treated to prevent one clinical event, such as the major adverse CV events used in SELECT.
 

Semaglutide vs Statins

How does the clinical effectiveness observed in the SELECT trial compare with that observed in statin trials when it comes to the secondary prevention of CVD?

The seminal 4S study published in 1994 explored the impact of simvastatin on all-cause mortality among people with previous myocardial infarction or angina and hyperlipidemia (mean baseline BMI, 26). After 5.4 years of follow-up, the trial was stopped early owing to a 3.3-percentage point absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality (NNT, 30; relative risk reduction, 28%). The NNT to prevent one death from CV causes was 31, and the NNT to prevent one major coronary event was lower, at 15.

Other statin secondary prevention trials, such as the LIPID and MIRACL studies, demonstrated similarly low NNTs.

So, you can see that the NNTs for statins in secondary prevention are much lower than with semaglutide in SELECT. Furthermore, the benefits of semaglutide in preventing CVD in people living with overweight/obesity have yet to be elucidated. 

In contrast, we already have published evidence showing the benefits of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, albeit with higher and more variable NNTs than in the statin secondary prevention studies. 

The benefits of statins are also postulated to extend beyond their impact on lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins have been suggested to have anti-inflammatory and plaque-stabilizing effects, among other pleiotropic benefits.

We also currently lack evidence for the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide for CV risk reduction. Assessing economic viability and use in health care systems, such as the UK’s National Health Service, involves comparing the cost of semaglutide against the health care savings from prevented CV events. Health economic studies are vital to determine whether the benefits justify the expense. In contrast, the cost-effectiveness of statins is well established, particularly for high-risk individuals.
 

Advantages of GLP-1s Should Not Be Overlooked

Of course, statins don’t provide the significant weight loss benefits of semaglutide. 

Additional data from SELECT presented at the 2024 European Congress on Obesity demonstrated that participants lost a mean of 10.2% body weight and 7.7 cm from their waist circumference after 4 years. Moreover, after 2 years, 12% of individuals randomized to semaglutide had returned to a normal BMI, and nearly half were no longer living with obesity.

Although the CV benefits of semaglutide were independent of weight reduction, this level of weight loss is clinically meaningful and will reduce the risk of many other cardiometabolic conditions including type 2 diabetes, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome, as well as improve low mood, depression, and overall quality of life. Additionally, obesity is now a risk factor for 13 different types of cancer, including bowel, breast, and pancreatic cancer, so facilitating a return to a healthier body weight will also mitigate future risk for cancer.
 

Sticking With Our Cornerstone Therapy, For Now

In conclusion, I do not believe that semaglutide is the “new statin.” Statins are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of CVD in a wide range of comorbidities, as evidenced in multiple large and high-quality trials dating back over 30 years.

However, there is no doubt that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is the most significant therapeutic advance for the management of obesity and comorbidities to date. 

The SELECT CVOT data uniquely position semaglutide as a secondary CVD prevention agent on top of guideline-driven management for people living with overweight/obesity and established CVD. Additionally, the clinically meaningful weight loss achieved with semaglutide will impact the risk of developing many other cardiometabolic conditions, as well as improve mental health and overall quality of life.

Dr. Fernando, GP Partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, creates concise clinical aide-mémoire for primary and secondary care to make life easier for health care professionals and ultimately to improve the lives of patients. He is very active on social media (X handle @drkevinfernando), where he posts hot topics in type 2 diabetes and CVRM. He recently has forayed into YouTube (@DrKevinFernando) and TikTok (@drkevinfernando) with patient-facing video content. Dr. Fernando has been elected to Fellowship of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the Academy of Medical Educators for his work in diabetes and medical education. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

Arterial stiffness increases the risk for developing glaucoma, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• To study the link between arterial stiffness and glaucoma, the researchers evaluated 4713 individuals (mean age, 66 years; 58% men) without the eye condition at baseline between April 2011 and November 2012.
• They assessed arterial stiffness by measuring aortic pulse wave velocity, estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and aortic pulse pressure.
• The primary outcome was incident glaucoma, identified from prescriptions for eye drops or hospital records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 people in the study developed glaucoma over a mean follow-up period of 10.5 years.
• For every standard deviation increase in aortic pulse wave velocity, participants had a 32% higher risk for developing glaucoma (standardized hazard ratio [sHR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60), while estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was associated with a 37% higher risk (sHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).
• Incident glaucoma increased across all quartiles of arterial stiffness, with the highest risk observed in the fourth quartile for aortic pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.36-4.26), estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.27-4.13), and aortic pulse pressure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.82).
• The cumulative incidence of glaucoma rose with increases in arterial stiffness. This trend was statistically significant for both aortic and estimated pulse wave velocity (P < .0001) and aortic pulse pressure (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Arterial stiffness…which can be easily and accurately measured, could be used as a tool in clinical practice [as part of routine blood pressure measurement] to help identify people at risk of glaucoma and as a therapeutic target to prevent glaucoma progression,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Angela L. Beros, MPH, of the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort study did not clinically assess for glaucoma, potentially leading to the inclusion of individuals with the condition. Not all participants with incident glaucoma, particularly those unaware of their diagnosis, may have been identified. Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness, which are common risk factors for glaucoma, were not included in the multivariate analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Arterial stiffness increases the risk for developing glaucoma, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• To study the link between arterial stiffness and glaucoma, the researchers evaluated 4713 individuals (mean age, 66 years; 58% men) without the eye condition at baseline between April 2011 and November 2012.
• They assessed arterial stiffness by measuring aortic pulse wave velocity, estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and aortic pulse pressure.
• The primary outcome was incident glaucoma, identified from prescriptions for eye drops or hospital records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 people in the study developed glaucoma over a mean follow-up period of 10.5 years.
• For every standard deviation increase in aortic pulse wave velocity, participants had a 32% higher risk for developing glaucoma (standardized hazard ratio [sHR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60), while estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was associated with a 37% higher risk (sHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).
• Incident glaucoma increased across all quartiles of arterial stiffness, with the highest risk observed in the fourth quartile for aortic pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.36-4.26), estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.27-4.13), and aortic pulse pressure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.82).
• The cumulative incidence of glaucoma rose with increases in arterial stiffness. This trend was statistically significant for both aortic and estimated pulse wave velocity (P < .0001) and aortic pulse pressure (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Arterial stiffness…which can be easily and accurately measured, could be used as a tool in clinical practice [as part of routine blood pressure measurement] to help identify people at risk of glaucoma and as a therapeutic target to prevent glaucoma progression,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Angela L. Beros, MPH, of the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort study did not clinically assess for glaucoma, potentially leading to the inclusion of individuals with the condition. Not all participants with incident glaucoma, particularly those unaware of their diagnosis, may have been identified. Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness, which are common risk factors for glaucoma, were not included in the multivariate analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Arterial stiffness increases the risk for developing glaucoma, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• To study the link between arterial stiffness and glaucoma, the researchers evaluated 4713 individuals (mean age, 66 years; 58% men) without the eye condition at baseline between April 2011 and November 2012.
• They assessed arterial stiffness by measuring aortic pulse wave velocity, estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and aortic pulse pressure.
• The primary outcome was incident glaucoma, identified from prescriptions for eye drops or hospital records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 people in the study developed glaucoma over a mean follow-up period of 10.5 years.
• For every standard deviation increase in aortic pulse wave velocity, participants had a 32% higher risk for developing glaucoma (standardized hazard ratio [sHR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60), while estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was associated with a 37% higher risk (sHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).
• Incident glaucoma increased across all quartiles of arterial stiffness, with the highest risk observed in the fourth quartile for aortic pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.36-4.26), estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.27-4.13), and aortic pulse pressure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.82).
• The cumulative incidence of glaucoma rose with increases in arterial stiffness. This trend was statistically significant for both aortic and estimated pulse wave velocity (P < .0001) and aortic pulse pressure (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Arterial stiffness…which can be easily and accurately measured, could be used as a tool in clinical practice [as part of routine blood pressure measurement] to help identify people at risk of glaucoma and as a therapeutic target to prevent glaucoma progression,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Angela L. Beros, MPH, of the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort study did not clinically assess for glaucoma, potentially leading to the inclusion of individuals with the condition. Not all participants with incident glaucoma, particularly those unaware of their diagnosis, may have been identified. Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness, which are common risk factors for glaucoma, were not included in the multivariate analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercise recommendations typically focus on the duration of physical activity. For example, the World Health Organization advises at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week. A new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggested that step count could also be a useful metric. For some, such a recommendation might be easier to follow.

“It’s not so easy to keep track of how long you’ve been moderately active in a given week,” Cary P. Gross, MD, from the Department of Medicine at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, wrote in an editorial. “Counting steps might be easier for some people, especially since most carry a phone that can serve as a pedometer.”
 

The 10,000-Step Recommendation

However, there are no well-founded recommendations for step counts, partly due to a lack of scientific evidence linking steps with mortality and cardiovascular diseases. The often-cited 10,000 steps per day originated from a marketing campaign in Japan in the 1960s.

The research team led by Rikuta Hamaya, MD, from the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, analyzed data from participants in the Women’s Health Study. This clinical trial in the United States from 1992 to 2004 investigated the use of aspirin and vitamin E for cancer and cardiovascular disease prevention.

The current analysis included 14,399 women who were aged ≥ 62 years and had not developed cardiovascular disease or cancer. Between 2011 and 2015, they measured their physical activity and step count over 7 days using an accelerometer. They were followed-up for an average of 9 years.
 

Risk Reduction With Both Parameters

Moderate physical activity among the participants amounted to a median of 62 minutes per week, with a median daily step count of 5183. Hamaya and his colleagues found that both physical activity parameters were associated with lower mortality and reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Participants who engaged in more than the recommended 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week had a 32% lower mortality risk than those who were the least physically active. Women with > 7000 steps per day had a 42% lower mortality risk than those with the lowest daily step count.

Women in the top three quartiles of physical activity outlived those in the lowest quartile by an average of 2.22 months (time) or 2.36 months (steps), according to Hamaya and his team. The survival advantage was independent of body mass index.

For the endpoint of cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality), the researchers observed similar results as for mortality.
 

More Ways to Reach the Goal

Dr. Hamaya emphasized the importance of offering multiple ways to meet exercise recommendations: “For some, especially younger people, physical activity includes sports like tennis, soccer, walking, or jogging. All these can be tracked well with step counting. But for others, activity means cycling or swimming, which is easier to measure by duration.”

For Dr. Gross, the new findings provide a basis for using step counts to set physical activity goals — both in individual patient counseling and in formal guidelines. However, he stressed that further studies are necessary.

“The results need to be replicated in various populations, not just among men and younger people but also among ethnic minorities and lower-income populations, who often have less time and space for structured physical activity.”
 

This story was translated from Medscape German edition 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.

Exercise recommendations typically focus on the duration of physical activity. For example, the World Health Organization advises at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week. A new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggested that step count could also be a useful metric. For some, such a recommendation might be easier to follow.

“It’s not so easy to keep track of how long you’ve been moderately active in a given week,” Cary P. Gross, MD, from the Department of Medicine at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, wrote in an editorial. “Counting steps might be easier for some people, especially since most carry a phone that can serve as a pedometer.”
 

The 10,000-Step Recommendation

However, there are no well-founded recommendations for step counts, partly due to a lack of scientific evidence linking steps with mortality and cardiovascular diseases. The often-cited 10,000 steps per day originated from a marketing campaign in Japan in the 1960s.

The research team led by Rikuta Hamaya, MD, from the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, analyzed data from participants in the Women’s Health Study. This clinical trial in the United States from 1992 to 2004 investigated the use of aspirin and vitamin E for cancer and cardiovascular disease prevention.

The current analysis included 14,399 women who were aged ≥ 62 years and had not developed cardiovascular disease or cancer. Between 2011 and 2015, they measured their physical activity and step count over 7 days using an accelerometer. They were followed-up for an average of 9 years.
 

Risk Reduction With Both Parameters

Moderate physical activity among the participants amounted to a median of 62 minutes per week, with a median daily step count of 5183. Hamaya and his colleagues found that both physical activity parameters were associated with lower mortality and reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Participants who engaged in more than the recommended 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week had a 32% lower mortality risk than those who were the least physically active. Women with > 7000 steps per day had a 42% lower mortality risk than those with the lowest daily step count.

Women in the top three quartiles of physical activity outlived those in the lowest quartile by an average of 2.22 months (time) or 2.36 months (steps), according to Hamaya and his team. The survival advantage was independent of body mass index.

For the endpoint of cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality), the researchers observed similar results as for mortality.
 

More Ways to Reach the Goal

Dr. Hamaya emphasized the importance of offering multiple ways to meet exercise recommendations: “For some, especially younger people, physical activity includes sports like tennis, soccer, walking, or jogging. All these can be tracked well with step counting. But for others, activity means cycling or swimming, which is easier to measure by duration.”

For Dr. Gross, the new findings provide a basis for using step counts to set physical activity goals — both in individual patient counseling and in formal guidelines. However, he stressed that further studies are necessary.

“The results need to be replicated in various populations, not just among men and younger people but also among ethnic minorities and lower-income populations, who often have less time and space for structured physical activity.”
 

This story was translated from Medscape German edition 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.

Exercise recommendations typically focus on the duration of physical activity. For example, the World Health Organization advises at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week. A new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggested that step count could also be a useful metric. For some, such a recommendation might be easier to follow.

“It’s not so easy to keep track of how long you’ve been moderately active in a given week,” Cary P. Gross, MD, from the Department of Medicine at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, wrote in an editorial. “Counting steps might be easier for some people, especially since most carry a phone that can serve as a pedometer.”
 

The 10,000-Step Recommendation

However, there are no well-founded recommendations for step counts, partly due to a lack of scientific evidence linking steps with mortality and cardiovascular diseases. The often-cited 10,000 steps per day originated from a marketing campaign in Japan in the 1960s.

The research team led by Rikuta Hamaya, MD, from the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, analyzed data from participants in the Women’s Health Study. This clinical trial in the United States from 1992 to 2004 investigated the use of aspirin and vitamin E for cancer and cardiovascular disease prevention.

The current analysis included 14,399 women who were aged ≥ 62 years and had not developed cardiovascular disease or cancer. Between 2011 and 2015, they measured their physical activity and step count over 7 days using an accelerometer. They were followed-up for an average of 9 years.
 

Risk Reduction With Both Parameters

Moderate physical activity among the participants amounted to a median of 62 minutes per week, with a median daily step count of 5183. Hamaya and his colleagues found that both physical activity parameters were associated with lower mortality and reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Participants who engaged in more than the recommended 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week had a 32% lower mortality risk than those who were the least physically active. Women with > 7000 steps per day had a 42% lower mortality risk than those with the lowest daily step count.

Women in the top three quartiles of physical activity outlived those in the lowest quartile by an average of 2.22 months (time) or 2.36 months (steps), according to Hamaya and his team. The survival advantage was independent of body mass index.

For the endpoint of cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality), the researchers observed similar results as for mortality.
 

More Ways to Reach the Goal

Dr. Hamaya emphasized the importance of offering multiple ways to meet exercise recommendations: “For some, especially younger people, physical activity includes sports like tennis, soccer, walking, or jogging. All these can be tracked well with step counting. But for others, activity means cycling or swimming, which is easier to measure by duration.”

For Dr. Gross, the new findings provide a basis for using step counts to set physical activity goals — both in individual patient counseling and in formal guidelines. However, he stressed that further studies are necessary.

“The results need to be replicated in various populations, not just among men and younger people but also among ethnic minorities and lower-income populations, who often have less time and space for structured physical activity.”
 

This story was translated from Medscape German edition 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.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.