Cardiology

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

NEW ORLEANS – In the first pivotal randomized, controlled trial of a transcatheter device for the repair of severe tricuspid regurgitation, a large reduction in valve dysfunction was associated with substantial improvement in quality of life (QOL) persisting out of 1 year of follow-up, according to results of the TRILUMINATE trial.

Based on the low procedural risks of the repair, the principal investigator, Paul Sorajja, MD, called the results “very clinically meaningful” as he presented the results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Conducted at 65 centers in the United States, Canada, and North America, TRILUMINATE evaluated a transcatheter end-to-end (TEER) repair performed with the TriClip G4 Delivery System (Abbott). The study included two cohorts, both of which will be followed for 5 years. One included patients with very severe tricuspid regurgitation enrolled in a single arm. Data on this cohort is expected later in 2023.

In the randomized portion of the study, 350 patients enrolled with severe tricuspid regurgitation underwent TEER with a clipping device and then were followed on the guideline-directed therapy (GDMT) for heart failure they were receiving at baseline. The control group was managed on GDMT alone.

The primary composite endpoint at 1 year was a composite of death from any cause and/or tricuspid valve surgery, hospitalization for heart failure, and quality of life as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ).
 

Benefit driven by quality of life

For the primary endpoint, the win ratio, a statistical calculation of those who did relative to those who did not benefit, was 1.48, signifying a 48% advantage (P = .02). This was driven almost entirely by the KCCQ endpoint. There was no significant difference death and/or tricuspid valve surgery, which occurred in about 10% of both groups (P = .75) or heart failure hospitalization, which was occurred in slightly more patients randomized to repair (14.9% vs. 12.1%; P = .41).

For KCCQ, the mean increase at 1 year was 12.3 points in the repair group versus 0.6 points (P < .001) in the control group. With an increase of 5-10 points typically considered to be clinically meaningful, the advantage of repair over GDMT at the threshold of 15 points or greater was highly statistically significant (49.7% vs. 26.4%; P < .0001).

This advantage was attributed to control of regurgitation. The proportion achieving moderate or less regurgitation sustained at 1 year was 87% in the repair group versus 4.8% in the GDMT group (P < .0001).

When assessed independent of treatment, KCCQ benefits at 1 year increased in a stepwise fashion as severity of regurgitation was reduced, climbing from 2 points if there was no improvement to 6 points with one grade in improvement and then to 18 points with at least a two-grade improvement.

For regurgitation, “the repair was extremely effective,” said Dr. Sorajja of Allina Health Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis. He added that the degree of regurgitation control in the TRILUMINATE trial “is the highest ever reported.” With previous trials with other transcatheter devices in development, the improvement so far has been on the order of 70%-80%.

For enrollment in TRILUMINATE, patients were required to have at least an intermediate risk of morbidity or mortality from tricuspid valve surgery. Exclusion criteria included a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 20% and severe pulmonary hypertension.

More than 70% of patients had the highest (torrential) or second highest (massive) category of regurgitation on a five-level scale by echocardiography. Almost all the remaining were at the third level (severe).

Of those enrolled, the average age was roughly 78 years. About 55% were women. Nearly 60% were in New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and most had significant comorbidities, including hypertension (> 80%), atrial fibrillation (about 90%), and renal disease (35%). Patients with diabetes (16%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), and liver disease (7.5%) were represented in lower numbers.
 

Surgery is not necessarily an option

All enrolled patients were considered to be at intermediate or greater risk for mortality with surgical replacement of the tricuspid valve, but Dr. Sorajja pointed out that surgery, which involves valve replacement, is not necessarily an alternative to valve repair. Even in fit patients, the high morbidity, mortality, and extended hospital stay associated with surgical valve replacement makes this procedure unattractive.

In this trial, most patients who underwent the transcatheter procedure were discharged within a day. The safety was excellent, Dr. Sorajja said. Only three patients (1.7%) had a major adverse event. This included two cases of new-onset renal failure and one cardiovascular death. There were no cases of endocarditis requiring surgery or any other type of nonelective cardiovascular surgery, including for any device-related issue.

In the sick population enrolled, Dr. Sorajja characterized the number of adverse events over 1 year as “very low.”

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These results are important, according to Kendra Grubb, MD, surgical director of the Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University, Atlanta. While she expressed surprise that there was no signal of benefit on hard endpoints at 1 year, she emphasized that “these patients feel terrible,” and they are frustrating to manage because surgery is often contraindicated or impractical.

“Finally, we have something for this group,” she said, noting that the mortality from valve replacement surgery even among patients who are fit enough for surgery to be considered is about 10%.

Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, was more circumspect. He agreed that the improvement in QOL was encouraging, but cautioned that QOL is a particularly soft outcome in a nonrandomized trial in which patients may feel better just knowing that there regurgitation has been controlled. He found the lack of benefit on hard outcomes not just surprising but “disappointing.”

Still, he agreed the improvement in QOL is potentially meaningful for a procedure that appears to be relatively safe.

Dr. Sorajja reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Foldax. 4C Medical, Gore Medtronic, Phillips, Siemens, Shifamed, Vdyne, xDot, and Abbott Structural, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Grubb reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ancora Heart, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C Medical, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opsens, Phillips, ReCor, Regeneron, and Zoll.

NEW ORLEANS – In the first pivotal randomized, controlled trial of a transcatheter device for the repair of severe tricuspid regurgitation, a large reduction in valve dysfunction was associated with substantial improvement in quality of life (QOL) persisting out of 1 year of follow-up, according to results of the TRILUMINATE trial.

Based on the low procedural risks of the repair, the principal investigator, Paul Sorajja, MD, called the results “very clinically meaningful” as he presented the results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Conducted at 65 centers in the United States, Canada, and North America, TRILUMINATE evaluated a transcatheter end-to-end (TEER) repair performed with the TriClip G4 Delivery System (Abbott). The study included two cohorts, both of which will be followed for 5 years. One included patients with very severe tricuspid regurgitation enrolled in a single arm. Data on this cohort is expected later in 2023.

In the randomized portion of the study, 350 patients enrolled with severe tricuspid regurgitation underwent TEER with a clipping device and then were followed on the guideline-directed therapy (GDMT) for heart failure they were receiving at baseline. The control group was managed on GDMT alone.

The primary composite endpoint at 1 year was a composite of death from any cause and/or tricuspid valve surgery, hospitalization for heart failure, and quality of life as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ).
 

Benefit driven by quality of life

For the primary endpoint, the win ratio, a statistical calculation of those who did relative to those who did not benefit, was 1.48, signifying a 48% advantage (P = .02). This was driven almost entirely by the KCCQ endpoint. There was no significant difference death and/or tricuspid valve surgery, which occurred in about 10% of both groups (P = .75) or heart failure hospitalization, which was occurred in slightly more patients randomized to repair (14.9% vs. 12.1%; P = .41).

For KCCQ, the mean increase at 1 year was 12.3 points in the repair group versus 0.6 points (P < .001) in the control group. With an increase of 5-10 points typically considered to be clinically meaningful, the advantage of repair over GDMT at the threshold of 15 points or greater was highly statistically significant (49.7% vs. 26.4%; P < .0001).

This advantage was attributed to control of regurgitation. The proportion achieving moderate or less regurgitation sustained at 1 year was 87% in the repair group versus 4.8% in the GDMT group (P < .0001).

When assessed independent of treatment, KCCQ benefits at 1 year increased in a stepwise fashion as severity of regurgitation was reduced, climbing from 2 points if there was no improvement to 6 points with one grade in improvement and then to 18 points with at least a two-grade improvement.

For regurgitation, “the repair was extremely effective,” said Dr. Sorajja of Allina Health Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis. He added that the degree of regurgitation control in the TRILUMINATE trial “is the highest ever reported.” With previous trials with other transcatheter devices in development, the improvement so far has been on the order of 70%-80%.

For enrollment in TRILUMINATE, patients were required to have at least an intermediate risk of morbidity or mortality from tricuspid valve surgery. Exclusion criteria included a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 20% and severe pulmonary hypertension.

More than 70% of patients had the highest (torrential) or second highest (massive) category of regurgitation on a five-level scale by echocardiography. Almost all the remaining were at the third level (severe).

Of those enrolled, the average age was roughly 78 years. About 55% were women. Nearly 60% were in New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and most had significant comorbidities, including hypertension (> 80%), atrial fibrillation (about 90%), and renal disease (35%). Patients with diabetes (16%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), and liver disease (7.5%) were represented in lower numbers.
 

Surgery is not necessarily an option

All enrolled patients were considered to be at intermediate or greater risk for mortality with surgical replacement of the tricuspid valve, but Dr. Sorajja pointed out that surgery, which involves valve replacement, is not necessarily an alternative to valve repair. Even in fit patients, the high morbidity, mortality, and extended hospital stay associated with surgical valve replacement makes this procedure unattractive.

In this trial, most patients who underwent the transcatheter procedure were discharged within a day. The safety was excellent, Dr. Sorajja said. Only three patients (1.7%) had a major adverse event. This included two cases of new-onset renal failure and one cardiovascular death. There were no cases of endocarditis requiring surgery or any other type of nonelective cardiovascular surgery, including for any device-related issue.

In the sick population enrolled, Dr. Sorajja characterized the number of adverse events over 1 year as “very low.”

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These results are important, according to Kendra Grubb, MD, surgical director of the Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University, Atlanta. While she expressed surprise that there was no signal of benefit on hard endpoints at 1 year, she emphasized that “these patients feel terrible,” and they are frustrating to manage because surgery is often contraindicated or impractical.

“Finally, we have something for this group,” she said, noting that the mortality from valve replacement surgery even among patients who are fit enough for surgery to be considered is about 10%.

Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, was more circumspect. He agreed that the improvement in QOL was encouraging, but cautioned that QOL is a particularly soft outcome in a nonrandomized trial in which patients may feel better just knowing that there regurgitation has been controlled. He found the lack of benefit on hard outcomes not just surprising but “disappointing.”

Still, he agreed the improvement in QOL is potentially meaningful for a procedure that appears to be relatively safe.

Dr. Sorajja reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Foldax. 4C Medical, Gore Medtronic, Phillips, Siemens, Shifamed, Vdyne, xDot, and Abbott Structural, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Grubb reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ancora Heart, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C Medical, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opsens, Phillips, ReCor, Regeneron, and Zoll.

NEW ORLEANS – In the first pivotal randomized, controlled trial of a transcatheter device for the repair of severe tricuspid regurgitation, a large reduction in valve dysfunction was associated with substantial improvement in quality of life (QOL) persisting out of 1 year of follow-up, according to results of the TRILUMINATE trial.

Based on the low procedural risks of the repair, the principal investigator, Paul Sorajja, MD, called the results “very clinically meaningful” as he presented the results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Conducted at 65 centers in the United States, Canada, and North America, TRILUMINATE evaluated a transcatheter end-to-end (TEER) repair performed with the TriClip G4 Delivery System (Abbott). The study included two cohorts, both of which will be followed for 5 years. One included patients with very severe tricuspid regurgitation enrolled in a single arm. Data on this cohort is expected later in 2023.

In the randomized portion of the study, 350 patients enrolled with severe tricuspid regurgitation underwent TEER with a clipping device and then were followed on the guideline-directed therapy (GDMT) for heart failure they were receiving at baseline. The control group was managed on GDMT alone.

The primary composite endpoint at 1 year was a composite of death from any cause and/or tricuspid valve surgery, hospitalization for heart failure, and quality of life as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ).
 

Benefit driven by quality of life

For the primary endpoint, the win ratio, a statistical calculation of those who did relative to those who did not benefit, was 1.48, signifying a 48% advantage (P = .02). This was driven almost entirely by the KCCQ endpoint. There was no significant difference death and/or tricuspid valve surgery, which occurred in about 10% of both groups (P = .75) or heart failure hospitalization, which was occurred in slightly more patients randomized to repair (14.9% vs. 12.1%; P = .41).

For KCCQ, the mean increase at 1 year was 12.3 points in the repair group versus 0.6 points (P < .001) in the control group. With an increase of 5-10 points typically considered to be clinically meaningful, the advantage of repair over GDMT at the threshold of 15 points or greater was highly statistically significant (49.7% vs. 26.4%; P < .0001).

This advantage was attributed to control of regurgitation. The proportion achieving moderate or less regurgitation sustained at 1 year was 87% in the repair group versus 4.8% in the GDMT group (P < .0001).

When assessed independent of treatment, KCCQ benefits at 1 year increased in a stepwise fashion as severity of regurgitation was reduced, climbing from 2 points if there was no improvement to 6 points with one grade in improvement and then to 18 points with at least a two-grade improvement.

For regurgitation, “the repair was extremely effective,” said Dr. Sorajja of Allina Health Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis. He added that the degree of regurgitation control in the TRILUMINATE trial “is the highest ever reported.” With previous trials with other transcatheter devices in development, the improvement so far has been on the order of 70%-80%.

For enrollment in TRILUMINATE, patients were required to have at least an intermediate risk of morbidity or mortality from tricuspid valve surgery. Exclusion criteria included a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 20% and severe pulmonary hypertension.

More than 70% of patients had the highest (torrential) or second highest (massive) category of regurgitation on a five-level scale by echocardiography. Almost all the remaining were at the third level (severe).

Of those enrolled, the average age was roughly 78 years. About 55% were women. Nearly 60% were in New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and most had significant comorbidities, including hypertension (> 80%), atrial fibrillation (about 90%), and renal disease (35%). Patients with diabetes (16%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), and liver disease (7.5%) were represented in lower numbers.
 

Surgery is not necessarily an option

All enrolled patients were considered to be at intermediate or greater risk for mortality with surgical replacement of the tricuspid valve, but Dr. Sorajja pointed out that surgery, which involves valve replacement, is not necessarily an alternative to valve repair. Even in fit patients, the high morbidity, mortality, and extended hospital stay associated with surgical valve replacement makes this procedure unattractive.

In this trial, most patients who underwent the transcatheter procedure were discharged within a day. The safety was excellent, Dr. Sorajja said. Only three patients (1.7%) had a major adverse event. This included two cases of new-onset renal failure and one cardiovascular death. There were no cases of endocarditis requiring surgery or any other type of nonelective cardiovascular surgery, including for any device-related issue.

In the sick population enrolled, Dr. Sorajja characterized the number of adverse events over 1 year as “very low.”

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These results are important, according to Kendra Grubb, MD, surgical director of the Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University, Atlanta. While she expressed surprise that there was no signal of benefit on hard endpoints at 1 year, she emphasized that “these patients feel terrible,” and they are frustrating to manage because surgery is often contraindicated or impractical.

“Finally, we have something for this group,” she said, noting that the mortality from valve replacement surgery even among patients who are fit enough for surgery to be considered is about 10%.

Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, was more circumspect. He agreed that the improvement in QOL was encouraging, but cautioned that QOL is a particularly soft outcome in a nonrandomized trial in which patients may feel better just knowing that there regurgitation has been controlled. He found the lack of benefit on hard outcomes not just surprising but “disappointing.”

Still, he agreed the improvement in QOL is potentially meaningful for a procedure that appears to be relatively safe.

Dr. Sorajja reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Foldax. 4C Medical, Gore Medtronic, Phillips, Siemens, Shifamed, Vdyne, xDot, and Abbott Structural, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Grubb reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ancora Heart, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C Medical, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opsens, Phillips, ReCor, Regeneron, and Zoll.

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

Any amount of exercise in middle age is associated with better cognition in later life, new research suggests.

A prospective study of 1,400 participants showed that those who exercised to any extent in adulthood had significantly better cognitive scores later in life, compared with their peers who were physically inactive.

Maintaining an exercise routine throughout adulthood showed the strongest link to subsequent mental acuity.

Although these associations lessened when investigators controlled for childhood cognitive ability, socioeconomic background, and education, they remained statistically significant.

“Our findings support recommendations for greater participation in physical activity across adulthood,” lead investigator Sarah-Naomi James, PhD, research fellow at the Medical Research Council Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at the University College London, told this news organization.

“We provide evidence to encourage inactive adults to be active even to a small extent … at any point during adulthood,” which can improve cognition and memory later in life, Dr. James said.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
 

Exercise timing

Previous studies have established a link between fitness training and cognitive benefit later in life, but the researchers wanted to explore whether the timing or type of exercise influenced cognitive outcomes in later life.

The investigators asked more than 1,400 participants in the 1946 British birth cohort how much they had exercised at ages 36, 43, 60, and 69 years.

The questions changed slightly for each assessment period, but in general, participants were asked whether in the past month they had exercised or participated in such activities as badminton, swimming, fitness exercises, yoga, dancing, football, mountain climbing, jogging, or brisk walks for 30 minutes or more; and if so, how many times they participated per month.

Prior research showed that when the participants were aged 60 years, the most commonly reported activities were walking (71%), swimming (33%), floor exercises (24%), and cycling (15%).

When they turned 69, researchers tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination–III, which measures attention and orientation, verbal fluency, memory, language, and visuospatial function. In this study sample, 53% were women, and all were White.

Physical activity levels were classified as inactive, moderately active (one to four times per month), and most active (five or more times per month). In addition, they were summed across all five assessments to create a total score ranging from 0 (inactive at all ages) to 5 (active at all ages).

Overall, 11% of participants were physically inactive at all five time points; 17% were active at one time point; 20% were active at two and three time points; 17% were active at four time points; and 15% were active at all five time points.
 

‘Cradle to grave’ study?

Results showed that being physically active at all study time points was significantly associated with higher cognitive performance, verbal memory, and processing speed when participants were aged 69 (P < .01).

Those who exercised to any extent in adulthood – even just once a month during one of the time periods, fared better cognitively in later life, compared with physically inactive participants. (P < .01).

Study limitations cited include a lack of diversity among participants and a disproportionately high attrition rate among those who were socially disadvantaged.

“Our findings show that being active during every decade from their 30s on was associated with better cognition at around 70. Indeed, those who were active for longer had the highest cognitive function,” Dr. James said.

“However, it is also never too late to start. People in our study who only started being active in their 50s or 60s still had higher cognitive scores at age 70, compared to people of the same age who had never been active,” she added.

Dr. James intends to continue following the study sample to determine whether physical activity is linked to preserved cognitive aging “and buffers the effects of cognitive deterioration in the presence of disease markers that cause dementia, ultimately delaying dementia onset.

“We hope the cohort we study will be the first ‘cradle to grave’ study in the world, where we have followed people for their entire lives,” she said.
 

Encouraging finding

In a comment, Joel Hughes, PhD, professor of psychology and director of clinical training at Kent (Ohio) State University, said the study contributes to the idea that “accumulation of physical activity over one’s lifetime fits the data better than a ‘sensitive period’ – which suggests that it’s never too late to start exercising.”

Dr. Hughes, who was not involved in the research, noted that “exercise can improve cerebral blood flow and hemodynamic function, as well as greater activation of relevant brain regions such as the frontal lobes.”

While observing that the effects of exercise on cognition are likely complex from a mechanistic point of view, the finding that “exercise preserves or improves cognition later in life is encouraging,” he said.

The study received funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Alzheimer’s Research UK. The investigators and Dr. Hughes report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Any amount of exercise in middle age is associated with better cognition in later life, new research suggests.

A prospective study of 1,400 participants showed that those who exercised to any extent in adulthood had significantly better cognitive scores later in life, compared with their peers who were physically inactive.

Maintaining an exercise routine throughout adulthood showed the strongest link to subsequent mental acuity.

Although these associations lessened when investigators controlled for childhood cognitive ability, socioeconomic background, and education, they remained statistically significant.

“Our findings support recommendations for greater participation in physical activity across adulthood,” lead investigator Sarah-Naomi James, PhD, research fellow at the Medical Research Council Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at the University College London, told this news organization.

“We provide evidence to encourage inactive adults to be active even to a small extent … at any point during adulthood,” which can improve cognition and memory later in life, Dr. James said.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
 

Exercise timing

Previous studies have established a link between fitness training and cognitive benefit later in life, but the researchers wanted to explore whether the timing or type of exercise influenced cognitive outcomes in later life.

The investigators asked more than 1,400 participants in the 1946 British birth cohort how much they had exercised at ages 36, 43, 60, and 69 years.

The questions changed slightly for each assessment period, but in general, participants were asked whether in the past month they had exercised or participated in such activities as badminton, swimming, fitness exercises, yoga, dancing, football, mountain climbing, jogging, or brisk walks for 30 minutes or more; and if so, how many times they participated per month.

Prior research showed that when the participants were aged 60 years, the most commonly reported activities were walking (71%), swimming (33%), floor exercises (24%), and cycling (15%).

When they turned 69, researchers tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination–III, which measures attention and orientation, verbal fluency, memory, language, and visuospatial function. In this study sample, 53% were women, and all were White.

Physical activity levels were classified as inactive, moderately active (one to four times per month), and most active (five or more times per month). In addition, they were summed across all five assessments to create a total score ranging from 0 (inactive at all ages) to 5 (active at all ages).

Overall, 11% of participants were physically inactive at all five time points; 17% were active at one time point; 20% were active at two and three time points; 17% were active at four time points; and 15% were active at all five time points.
 

‘Cradle to grave’ study?

Results showed that being physically active at all study time points was significantly associated with higher cognitive performance, verbal memory, and processing speed when participants were aged 69 (P < .01).

Those who exercised to any extent in adulthood – even just once a month during one of the time periods, fared better cognitively in later life, compared with physically inactive participants. (P < .01).

Study limitations cited include a lack of diversity among participants and a disproportionately high attrition rate among those who were socially disadvantaged.

“Our findings show that being active during every decade from their 30s on was associated with better cognition at around 70. Indeed, those who were active for longer had the highest cognitive function,” Dr. James said.

“However, it is also never too late to start. People in our study who only started being active in their 50s or 60s still had higher cognitive scores at age 70, compared to people of the same age who had never been active,” she added.

Dr. James intends to continue following the study sample to determine whether physical activity is linked to preserved cognitive aging “and buffers the effects of cognitive deterioration in the presence of disease markers that cause dementia, ultimately delaying dementia onset.

“We hope the cohort we study will be the first ‘cradle to grave’ study in the world, where we have followed people for their entire lives,” she said.
 

Encouraging finding

In a comment, Joel Hughes, PhD, professor of psychology and director of clinical training at Kent (Ohio) State University, said the study contributes to the idea that “accumulation of physical activity over one’s lifetime fits the data better than a ‘sensitive period’ – which suggests that it’s never too late to start exercising.”

Dr. Hughes, who was not involved in the research, noted that “exercise can improve cerebral blood flow and hemodynamic function, as well as greater activation of relevant brain regions such as the frontal lobes.”

While observing that the effects of exercise on cognition are likely complex from a mechanistic point of view, the finding that “exercise preserves or improves cognition later in life is encouraging,” he said.

The study received funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Alzheimer’s Research UK. The investigators and Dr. Hughes report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Any amount of exercise in middle age is associated with better cognition in later life, new research suggests.

A prospective study of 1,400 participants showed that those who exercised to any extent in adulthood had significantly better cognitive scores later in life, compared with their peers who were physically inactive.

Maintaining an exercise routine throughout adulthood showed the strongest link to subsequent mental acuity.

Although these associations lessened when investigators controlled for childhood cognitive ability, socioeconomic background, and education, they remained statistically significant.

“Our findings support recommendations for greater participation in physical activity across adulthood,” lead investigator Sarah-Naomi James, PhD, research fellow at the Medical Research Council Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at the University College London, told this news organization.

“We provide evidence to encourage inactive adults to be active even to a small extent … at any point during adulthood,” which can improve cognition and memory later in life, Dr. James said.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
 

Exercise timing

Previous studies have established a link between fitness training and cognitive benefit later in life, but the researchers wanted to explore whether the timing or type of exercise influenced cognitive outcomes in later life.

The investigators asked more than 1,400 participants in the 1946 British birth cohort how much they had exercised at ages 36, 43, 60, and 69 years.

The questions changed slightly for each assessment period, but in general, participants were asked whether in the past month they had exercised or participated in such activities as badminton, swimming, fitness exercises, yoga, dancing, football, mountain climbing, jogging, or brisk walks for 30 minutes or more; and if so, how many times they participated per month.

Prior research showed that when the participants were aged 60 years, the most commonly reported activities were walking (71%), swimming (33%), floor exercises (24%), and cycling (15%).

When they turned 69, researchers tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination–III, which measures attention and orientation, verbal fluency, memory, language, and visuospatial function. In this study sample, 53% were women, and all were White.

Physical activity levels were classified as inactive, moderately active (one to four times per month), and most active (five or more times per month). In addition, they were summed across all five assessments to create a total score ranging from 0 (inactive at all ages) to 5 (active at all ages).

Overall, 11% of participants were physically inactive at all five time points; 17% were active at one time point; 20% were active at two and three time points; 17% were active at four time points; and 15% were active at all five time points.
 

‘Cradle to grave’ study?

Results showed that being physically active at all study time points was significantly associated with higher cognitive performance, verbal memory, and processing speed when participants were aged 69 (P < .01).

Those who exercised to any extent in adulthood – even just once a month during one of the time periods, fared better cognitively in later life, compared with physically inactive participants. (P < .01).

Study limitations cited include a lack of diversity among participants and a disproportionately high attrition rate among those who were socially disadvantaged.

“Our findings show that being active during every decade from their 30s on was associated with better cognition at around 70. Indeed, those who were active for longer had the highest cognitive function,” Dr. James said.

“However, it is also never too late to start. People in our study who only started being active in their 50s or 60s still had higher cognitive scores at age 70, compared to people of the same age who had never been active,” she added.

Dr. James intends to continue following the study sample to determine whether physical activity is linked to preserved cognitive aging “and buffers the effects of cognitive deterioration in the presence of disease markers that cause dementia, ultimately delaying dementia onset.

“We hope the cohort we study will be the first ‘cradle to grave’ study in the world, where we have followed people for their entire lives,” she said.
 

Encouraging finding

In a comment, Joel Hughes, PhD, professor of psychology and director of clinical training at Kent (Ohio) State University, said the study contributes to the idea that “accumulation of physical activity over one’s lifetime fits the data better than a ‘sensitive period’ – which suggests that it’s never too late to start exercising.”

Dr. Hughes, who was not involved in the research, noted that “exercise can improve cerebral blood flow and hemodynamic function, as well as greater activation of relevant brain regions such as the frontal lobes.”

While observing that the effects of exercise on cognition are likely complex from a mechanistic point of view, the finding that “exercise preserves or improves cognition later in life is encouraging,” he said.

The study received funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Alzheimer’s Research UK. The investigators and Dr. Hughes report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for treatment of adults with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), citing a lack of evidence on efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Last December, a panel of FDA advisers recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil for chronic HFrEF, as reported by this news organization.

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF. The drug had a PDUFA date of February 28.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

In a complete response letter, the FDA said GALACTIC-HF is “not sufficiently persuasive to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for reducing the risk of heart failure events and cardiovascular death” in adults with HFrEF, Cytokinetics shared in a news release.

Further, the FDA said results from an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil are required to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for the treatment of HFrEF, with benefits that outweigh the risks, Cytokinetics said.

The company said it will request a meeting with the FDA to gain a better understanding of what may be required to support potential approval of omecamtiv mecarbil. However, the company also said it has “no plans” to conduct an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil.

Instead, the company said its focus remains on the development of aficamten, the next-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, currently the subject of SEQUOIA-HCM, a phase 3 clinical trial in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for treatment of adults with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), citing a lack of evidence on efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Last December, a panel of FDA advisers recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil for chronic HFrEF, as reported by this news organization.

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF. The drug had a PDUFA date of February 28.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

In a complete response letter, the FDA said GALACTIC-HF is “not sufficiently persuasive to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for reducing the risk of heart failure events and cardiovascular death” in adults with HFrEF, Cytokinetics shared in a news release.

Further, the FDA said results from an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil are required to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for the treatment of HFrEF, with benefits that outweigh the risks, Cytokinetics said.

The company said it will request a meeting with the FDA to gain a better understanding of what may be required to support potential approval of omecamtiv mecarbil. However, the company also said it has “no plans” to conduct an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil.

Instead, the company said its focus remains on the development of aficamten, the next-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, currently the subject of SEQUOIA-HCM, a phase 3 clinical trial in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for treatment of adults with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), citing a lack of evidence on efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Last December, a panel of FDA advisers recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil for chronic HFrEF, as reported by this news organization.

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF. The drug had a PDUFA date of February 28.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

In a complete response letter, the FDA said GALACTIC-HF is “not sufficiently persuasive to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for reducing the risk of heart failure events and cardiovascular death” in adults with HFrEF, Cytokinetics shared in a news release.

Further, the FDA said results from an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil are required to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for the treatment of HFrEF, with benefits that outweigh the risks, Cytokinetics said.

The company said it will request a meeting with the FDA to gain a better understanding of what may be required to support potential approval of omecamtiv mecarbil. However, the company also said it has “no plans” to conduct an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil.

Instead, the company said its focus remains on the development of aficamten, the next-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, currently the subject of SEQUOIA-HCM, a phase 3 clinical trial in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

In children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes, the calcium channel blocker verapamil slowed the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells for up to a year, new data show.

Use of daily verapamil within a month of diagnosis resulted in a 30% increase in C-peptide secretion (a measure of preserved beta-cell function), compared with placebo at 52 weeks, without serious adverse events.

To put it another way, verapamil delayed the expected decline in C-peptide production from 3 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to 6 months after diagnosis.

“We think this is a really, really exciting finding that’s hopefully going to impact the care for children with type 1 diabetes in the new-onset period,” lead author Gregory P. Forlenza, MD, said during his presentation of the data on Feb. 24 at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) meeting in Berlin.

“In view of the favorable safety profile, particularly compared with immune-suppressive agents, once-a-day oral administration, and low cost, initiation of verapamil should be a consideration for newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes,” added Dr. Forlenza, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora.

The data were also simultaneously published in JAMA, as part of the CLVer (Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy and Verapamil for Beta Cell Preservation in New Onset Type 1 Diabetes) trial.

The randomized, double-blind, six-center trial involved 113 participants, aged 7-17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. They were randomized to the most advanced commercially available automated insulin delivery systems available or standard care to test the effects of intensive glucose control on C-peptide levels for 52 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2020 to September 2022). Eighty-eight patients who weighed 30 kg (66 lb) or more were further randomized (1:1) to daily extended-release verapamil or placebo for the same duration. 

The positive findings for verapamil, published in one paper, contrasted with the negative ones for the automated insulin delivery (AID) system. The latter did not prevent the expected decline in C-peptide, putting to rest a long-held hypothesis that reducing glucotoxicity might preserve beta-cell function in newly diagnosed individuals with type 1 diabetes, noted Dr. Forlenza.
 

Could combination therapy work?

In recent years, immune-modulating agents have increasingly been shown to preserve beta-cell function in both new-onset and preclinical type 1 diabetes. One such agent, teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2022 to delay type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk.

Calcium channel blockers such as verapamil – used for years to treat hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias – may accomplish the same goal as teplizumab but in a different way, by reducing the protein overexpression that induces beta-cell apoptosis and death.

Dr. Forlenza showed a slide comparing the preservation of C-peptide, which was much lower with verapamil, at 30%, than with teplizumab, at 75%.

Asked to comment, session moderator Torben Biester, MD, a pediatric diabetologist at Auf der Bult-Zentrum Diabetes-Center for Children and Adolescents, Hanover, Germany, said: “[Verapamil] is a very cheap [daily] pill. [Teplizumab] is a very high-priced ... immune therapy in the United States ... an infusion twice for 10 days, so it’s a lot more burden for the patients and a lot more risk of side effects.”

“The future might be combination therapy,” added Dr. Biester.

And in an editorial published in JAMA and accompanying the two CLVer papers, Jennifer Couper, MD, of the University of Adelaide, agrees: “A well-tolerated, inexpensive, oral treatment such as verapamil with modest benefits on C-peptide production is relevant to practice.”

The new work “supports investigation of verapamil in combination with other effective agents during the earlier stages of type 1 diabetes before insulin dependence develops,” she noted.
 

Verapamil results ‘brilliant’ but more work needed

In the verapamil part of the CLVer trial, by 52 weeks, verapamil doses in the youth who received it ranged from 120-360 mg/day based on weight and tolerance.

The primary outcome, C-peptide area under the curve, stayed stable, from 0.66 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.65 pmol/mL at 52 weeks in the verapamil group, compared with a drop from 0.60 pmol/mL down to 0.44 pmol/mL with placebo, a significant difference of 0.14 pmol/mL (P = .04), representing a 30% higher C-peptide level in the verapamil group.

“For us, this is a phenomenally exciting result,” Dr. Forlenza commented during his presentation.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.6% in the verapamil group versus 6.9% with placebo, which was not significantly different. Daily insulin dose was 0.65 versus 0.74 units/kg per day, respectively, also not significantly different.

One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in each group, and one diabetic ketoacidosis event occurred in the placebo group. In the verapamil group, three participants experienced “nonserious” electrocardiogram abnormalities and one had hypertension.

Dr. Biester said he isn’t “that concerned” about the small number of mild ECG abnormalities seen in the study with verapamil, as this is a known side effect. But overall, he said, “I would think that for a recommendation for routine use it’s too early after one study, even though the results are brilliant.”

He noted that he is involved in a similar ongoing study of verapamil in adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, called Ver-A-T1D.
 

No C-peptide effect of tight glycemic control: ‘A tough pill’

In the AID part of the study, the 113 participants were randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact (a median of 35 times) by study staff, or standard management using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.5% for the intensive group versus 7.1% with standard care, a significant difference. Time in blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL was significantly longer with intensive management, at 78%, compared with standard care, at 64%.

Nonetheless, the change in C-peptide area under the curve did not differ between the two groups, decreasing from 0.57 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.45 pmol/mL at 52 weeks with the AID system, compared with a decrease from 0.60 pmol/L down to 0.50 pmol/L with standard care (P = .89).

Dr. Forlenza commented that the hypothesis that tight glycemic control would delay the decline in C-peptide secretion “is something I think a lot of endocrinologists assumed to be true and something I’ve heard lots of colleagues over the years talk about.”

Consequently, he said these findings are “a tough pill for us to swallow ... but it’s important for us in the field to understand.”

“Even with frequent contacts that are well above the level we’d be able to do in standard clinical care, and even with use of the most advanced AID systems we have ... we saw absolutely no difference in stimulated C-peptide levels at any of the timepoints throughout the first year or at 52 weeks.”

“So, in our opinion, this,” combined with a prior study from 2022, “should put this hypothesis to rest,” he said.

“Excellent glycemic control has a benefit in and of itself, but it was not a successful intervention for beta-cell preservation.”

Dr. Forlenza has reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Lilly, and Beta Bionics, and his institution has also received funding on his behalf for research grants from these companies. Dr. Biester has reported receiving speaker’s fees from DexCom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, and Ypsomed Holding; serving on advisory boards for Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings, AstraZeneca, DexCom, and Medtronic; and receiving personal fees from SYNLAB; and is a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes. Dr. Couper has reported no relevant financial relationships.

The rationale for the companion CLVer analysis of the effect of reducing glucose toxicity via tight glycemic control on C-peptide progression dates back to an inpatient study published in 1989 involving 26 adolescents using an early artificial pancreas prototype called a Biostator, in which beta-cell preservation was achieved. However, two more recent studies of this approach, including one published in late 2022, did not show a difference. The CLVer analysis involved 113 participants randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact by study staff, or standard management using a CGM with a pump or multiple daily injections.

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

In children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes, the calcium channel blocker verapamil slowed the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells for up to a year, new data show.

Use of daily verapamil within a month of diagnosis resulted in a 30% increase in C-peptide secretion (a measure of preserved beta-cell function), compared with placebo at 52 weeks, without serious adverse events.

To put it another way, verapamil delayed the expected decline in C-peptide production from 3 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to 6 months after diagnosis.

“We think this is a really, really exciting finding that’s hopefully going to impact the care for children with type 1 diabetes in the new-onset period,” lead author Gregory P. Forlenza, MD, said during his presentation of the data on Feb. 24 at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) meeting in Berlin.

“In view of the favorable safety profile, particularly compared with immune-suppressive agents, once-a-day oral administration, and low cost, initiation of verapamil should be a consideration for newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes,” added Dr. Forlenza, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora.

The data were also simultaneously published in JAMA, as part of the CLVer (Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy and Verapamil for Beta Cell Preservation in New Onset Type 1 Diabetes) trial.

The randomized, double-blind, six-center trial involved 113 participants, aged 7-17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. They were randomized to the most advanced commercially available automated insulin delivery systems available or standard care to test the effects of intensive glucose control on C-peptide levels for 52 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2020 to September 2022). Eighty-eight patients who weighed 30 kg (66 lb) or more were further randomized (1:1) to daily extended-release verapamil or placebo for the same duration. 

The positive findings for verapamil, published in one paper, contrasted with the negative ones for the automated insulin delivery (AID) system. The latter did not prevent the expected decline in C-peptide, putting to rest a long-held hypothesis that reducing glucotoxicity might preserve beta-cell function in newly diagnosed individuals with type 1 diabetes, noted Dr. Forlenza.
 

Could combination therapy work?

In recent years, immune-modulating agents have increasingly been shown to preserve beta-cell function in both new-onset and preclinical type 1 diabetes. One such agent, teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2022 to delay type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk.

Calcium channel blockers such as verapamil – used for years to treat hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias – may accomplish the same goal as teplizumab but in a different way, by reducing the protein overexpression that induces beta-cell apoptosis and death.

Dr. Forlenza showed a slide comparing the preservation of C-peptide, which was much lower with verapamil, at 30%, than with teplizumab, at 75%.

Asked to comment, session moderator Torben Biester, MD, a pediatric diabetologist at Auf der Bult-Zentrum Diabetes-Center for Children and Adolescents, Hanover, Germany, said: “[Verapamil] is a very cheap [daily] pill. [Teplizumab] is a very high-priced ... immune therapy in the United States ... an infusion twice for 10 days, so it’s a lot more burden for the patients and a lot more risk of side effects.”

“The future might be combination therapy,” added Dr. Biester.

And in an editorial published in JAMA and accompanying the two CLVer papers, Jennifer Couper, MD, of the University of Adelaide, agrees: “A well-tolerated, inexpensive, oral treatment such as verapamil with modest benefits on C-peptide production is relevant to practice.”

The new work “supports investigation of verapamil in combination with other effective agents during the earlier stages of type 1 diabetes before insulin dependence develops,” she noted.
 

Verapamil results ‘brilliant’ but more work needed

In the verapamil part of the CLVer trial, by 52 weeks, verapamil doses in the youth who received it ranged from 120-360 mg/day based on weight and tolerance.

The primary outcome, C-peptide area under the curve, stayed stable, from 0.66 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.65 pmol/mL at 52 weeks in the verapamil group, compared with a drop from 0.60 pmol/mL down to 0.44 pmol/mL with placebo, a significant difference of 0.14 pmol/mL (P = .04), representing a 30% higher C-peptide level in the verapamil group.

“For us, this is a phenomenally exciting result,” Dr. Forlenza commented during his presentation.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.6% in the verapamil group versus 6.9% with placebo, which was not significantly different. Daily insulin dose was 0.65 versus 0.74 units/kg per day, respectively, also not significantly different.

One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in each group, and one diabetic ketoacidosis event occurred in the placebo group. In the verapamil group, three participants experienced “nonserious” electrocardiogram abnormalities and one had hypertension.

Dr. Biester said he isn’t “that concerned” about the small number of mild ECG abnormalities seen in the study with verapamil, as this is a known side effect. But overall, he said, “I would think that for a recommendation for routine use it’s too early after one study, even though the results are brilliant.”

He noted that he is involved in a similar ongoing study of verapamil in adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, called Ver-A-T1D.
 

No C-peptide effect of tight glycemic control: ‘A tough pill’

In the AID part of the study, the 113 participants were randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact (a median of 35 times) by study staff, or standard management using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.5% for the intensive group versus 7.1% with standard care, a significant difference. Time in blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL was significantly longer with intensive management, at 78%, compared with standard care, at 64%.

Nonetheless, the change in C-peptide area under the curve did not differ between the two groups, decreasing from 0.57 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.45 pmol/mL at 52 weeks with the AID system, compared with a decrease from 0.60 pmol/L down to 0.50 pmol/L with standard care (P = .89).

Dr. Forlenza commented that the hypothesis that tight glycemic control would delay the decline in C-peptide secretion “is something I think a lot of endocrinologists assumed to be true and something I’ve heard lots of colleagues over the years talk about.”

Consequently, he said these findings are “a tough pill for us to swallow ... but it’s important for us in the field to understand.”

“Even with frequent contacts that are well above the level we’d be able to do in standard clinical care, and even with use of the most advanced AID systems we have ... we saw absolutely no difference in stimulated C-peptide levels at any of the timepoints throughout the first year or at 52 weeks.”

“So, in our opinion, this,” combined with a prior study from 2022, “should put this hypothesis to rest,” he said.

“Excellent glycemic control has a benefit in and of itself, but it was not a successful intervention for beta-cell preservation.”

Dr. Forlenza has reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Lilly, and Beta Bionics, and his institution has also received funding on his behalf for research grants from these companies. Dr. Biester has reported receiving speaker’s fees from DexCom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, and Ypsomed Holding; serving on advisory boards for Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings, AstraZeneca, DexCom, and Medtronic; and receiving personal fees from SYNLAB; and is a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes. Dr. Couper has reported no relevant financial relationships.

The rationale for the companion CLVer analysis of the effect of reducing glucose toxicity via tight glycemic control on C-peptide progression dates back to an inpatient study published in 1989 involving 26 adolescents using an early artificial pancreas prototype called a Biostator, in which beta-cell preservation was achieved. However, two more recent studies of this approach, including one published in late 2022, did not show a difference. The CLVer analysis involved 113 participants randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact by study staff, or standard management using a CGM with a pump or multiple daily injections.

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

In children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes, the calcium channel blocker verapamil slowed the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells for up to a year, new data show.

Use of daily verapamil within a month of diagnosis resulted in a 30% increase in C-peptide secretion (a measure of preserved beta-cell function), compared with placebo at 52 weeks, without serious adverse events.

To put it another way, verapamil delayed the expected decline in C-peptide production from 3 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to 6 months after diagnosis.

“We think this is a really, really exciting finding that’s hopefully going to impact the care for children with type 1 diabetes in the new-onset period,” lead author Gregory P. Forlenza, MD, said during his presentation of the data on Feb. 24 at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) meeting in Berlin.

“In view of the favorable safety profile, particularly compared with immune-suppressive agents, once-a-day oral administration, and low cost, initiation of verapamil should be a consideration for newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes,” added Dr. Forlenza, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora.

The data were also simultaneously published in JAMA, as part of the CLVer (Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy and Verapamil for Beta Cell Preservation in New Onset Type 1 Diabetes) trial.

The randomized, double-blind, six-center trial involved 113 participants, aged 7-17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. They were randomized to the most advanced commercially available automated insulin delivery systems available or standard care to test the effects of intensive glucose control on C-peptide levels for 52 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2020 to September 2022). Eighty-eight patients who weighed 30 kg (66 lb) or more were further randomized (1:1) to daily extended-release verapamil or placebo for the same duration. 

The positive findings for verapamil, published in one paper, contrasted with the negative ones for the automated insulin delivery (AID) system. The latter did not prevent the expected decline in C-peptide, putting to rest a long-held hypothesis that reducing glucotoxicity might preserve beta-cell function in newly diagnosed individuals with type 1 diabetes, noted Dr. Forlenza.
 

Could combination therapy work?

In recent years, immune-modulating agents have increasingly been shown to preserve beta-cell function in both new-onset and preclinical type 1 diabetes. One such agent, teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2022 to delay type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk.

Calcium channel blockers such as verapamil – used for years to treat hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias – may accomplish the same goal as teplizumab but in a different way, by reducing the protein overexpression that induces beta-cell apoptosis and death.

Dr. Forlenza showed a slide comparing the preservation of C-peptide, which was much lower with verapamil, at 30%, than with teplizumab, at 75%.

Asked to comment, session moderator Torben Biester, MD, a pediatric diabetologist at Auf der Bult-Zentrum Diabetes-Center for Children and Adolescents, Hanover, Germany, said: “[Verapamil] is a very cheap [daily] pill. [Teplizumab] is a very high-priced ... immune therapy in the United States ... an infusion twice for 10 days, so it’s a lot more burden for the patients and a lot more risk of side effects.”

“The future might be combination therapy,” added Dr. Biester.

And in an editorial published in JAMA and accompanying the two CLVer papers, Jennifer Couper, MD, of the University of Adelaide, agrees: “A well-tolerated, inexpensive, oral treatment such as verapamil with modest benefits on C-peptide production is relevant to practice.”

The new work “supports investigation of verapamil in combination with other effective agents during the earlier stages of type 1 diabetes before insulin dependence develops,” she noted.
 

Verapamil results ‘brilliant’ but more work needed

In the verapamil part of the CLVer trial, by 52 weeks, verapamil doses in the youth who received it ranged from 120-360 mg/day based on weight and tolerance.

The primary outcome, C-peptide area under the curve, stayed stable, from 0.66 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.65 pmol/mL at 52 weeks in the verapamil group, compared with a drop from 0.60 pmol/mL down to 0.44 pmol/mL with placebo, a significant difference of 0.14 pmol/mL (P = .04), representing a 30% higher C-peptide level in the verapamil group.

“For us, this is a phenomenally exciting result,” Dr. Forlenza commented during his presentation.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.6% in the verapamil group versus 6.9% with placebo, which was not significantly different. Daily insulin dose was 0.65 versus 0.74 units/kg per day, respectively, also not significantly different.

One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in each group, and one diabetic ketoacidosis event occurred in the placebo group. In the verapamil group, three participants experienced “nonserious” electrocardiogram abnormalities and one had hypertension.

Dr. Biester said he isn’t “that concerned” about the small number of mild ECG abnormalities seen in the study with verapamil, as this is a known side effect. But overall, he said, “I would think that for a recommendation for routine use it’s too early after one study, even though the results are brilliant.”

He noted that he is involved in a similar ongoing study of verapamil in adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, called Ver-A-T1D.
 

No C-peptide effect of tight glycemic control: ‘A tough pill’

In the AID part of the study, the 113 participants were randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact (a median of 35 times) by study staff, or standard management using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.5% for the intensive group versus 7.1% with standard care, a significant difference. Time in blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL was significantly longer with intensive management, at 78%, compared with standard care, at 64%.

Nonetheless, the change in C-peptide area under the curve did not differ between the two groups, decreasing from 0.57 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.45 pmol/mL at 52 weeks with the AID system, compared with a decrease from 0.60 pmol/L down to 0.50 pmol/L with standard care (P = .89).

Dr. Forlenza commented that the hypothesis that tight glycemic control would delay the decline in C-peptide secretion “is something I think a lot of endocrinologists assumed to be true and something I’ve heard lots of colleagues over the years talk about.”

Consequently, he said these findings are “a tough pill for us to swallow ... but it’s important for us in the field to understand.”

“Even with frequent contacts that are well above the level we’d be able to do in standard clinical care, and even with use of the most advanced AID systems we have ... we saw absolutely no difference in stimulated C-peptide levels at any of the timepoints throughout the first year or at 52 weeks.”

“So, in our opinion, this,” combined with a prior study from 2022, “should put this hypothesis to rest,” he said.

“Excellent glycemic control has a benefit in and of itself, but it was not a successful intervention for beta-cell preservation.”

Dr. Forlenza has reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Lilly, and Beta Bionics, and his institution has also received funding on his behalf for research grants from these companies. Dr. Biester has reported receiving speaker’s fees from DexCom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, and Ypsomed Holding; serving on advisory boards for Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings, AstraZeneca, DexCom, and Medtronic; and receiving personal fees from SYNLAB; and is a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes. Dr. Couper has reported no relevant financial relationships.

The rationale for the companion CLVer analysis of the effect of reducing glucose toxicity via tight glycemic control on C-peptide progression dates back to an inpatient study published in 1989 involving 26 adolescents using an early artificial pancreas prototype called a Biostator, in which beta-cell preservation was achieved. However, two more recent studies of this approach, including one published in late 2022, did not show a difference. The CLVer analysis involved 113 participants randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact by study staff, or standard management using a CGM with a pump or multiple daily injections.

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

Insomnia – difficulty falling or staying asleep – was associated with a 69% greater risk of having a myocardial infarction than among adults without insomnia, according to new research.

Those who slept 5 or fewer hours per night had the highest risk for MI, and those with both diabetes and insomnia had double the risk for MI, compared with patients without these comorbidities.

amenic181/Getty Images

The findings are from a meta-analysis of studies in more than 1 million patients, almost all without prior MI who were, on average, in their early 50s and followed for 9 years.

Yomna E. Dean, a medical student at Alexandria (Egypt) University, reported these results in a press briefing, and the study was simultaneously published in Clinical Cardiology. It will be presented at the upcoming at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Insomnia and ]at least] 5 hours of sleep are highly associated with increased incidence of MI, an association comparable to that of other MI risk factors and as such, it should be considered as a risk factor for MI and to be incorporated into MI prevention guidelines,” the researchers concluded.

“We believe that [insomnia] should be screened and patients should be educated about the importance of sleep because nowadays insomnia is no longer a disease – sleep deprivation could also be a life choice,” Ms, Dean told a press conference prior to the meeting.

“Clinicians must educate the patients about the importance of sleep in maintaining a healthy heart and encourage proper sleep hygiene,” Ms. Dean reiterated in an email. “And if a patient still has insomnia, other methods should be considered such as cognitive-behavior[al] therapy for insomnia [CBT-I].”
 

Adds to growing evidence

This study does not allow any conclusion about whether treating insomnia will reduce heart attack risk, Jennifer L. Martin, PhD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, noted in a comment. Nor does it report the diversity of study participants, since insomnia is also a health equity issue, she noted, and insomnia symptoms and comorbidities were self-reported.

However, this analysis “adds to the growing evidence that poor quality or insufficient sleep is associated with poor health,” said Dr. Martin, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this research.

The study reinforces the recommendation from the American Heart Association, which includes “Get Healthy Sleep” as one of “Life’s Essential 8” for heart health, Dr. Martin noted.

“Particularly in primary care where disease prevention and health promotion are important, clinicians should be asking all patients about their sleep – just like they ask about diet and exercise – as a key aspect of maintaining heart health,” she said.

Advice about basic sleep hygiene advice is a first step, she noted.

When improved sleep hygiene is not enough to address chronic insomnia, the AASM’s clinical practice guidelines and the guidelines of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, recommend first-line treatment with CBT-I, typically offered by a sleep specialist or mental health clinician.

Similarly, the American College of Physicians suggests that sleeping pills should be reserved for short-term use in patients who may not benefit sufficiently from CBT-I.
 

Sleeping too little, too much, equally harmful

“Studies have found that insomnia and subsequent sleep deprivation puts the body under stress,” Ms. Dean said. “This triggers cortisol release which could accelerate atherosclerosis,” and increase risk of MI.

For this analysis, the researchers identified nine observational studies, published from 1998 to 2019, with data on incident MI in adults who had insomnia.

The diagnosis of insomnia was based on ICD diagnostic codes or on the DSM‐5, which defines insomnia as the presence of any of the following three symptoms: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, or early morning awakening with inability to return to sleep. Patients with sleep apnea were excluded.

The studies were in populations in China, Germany, Norway, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States, in 1.1 million adults aged 18 and older. The patients had a mean age of 52 years and 13% had insomnia.

During follow-up, 2,406 of 153,881 patients with insomnia, and 12,398 of 1,030,375 patients without insomnia had an MI.

In the pooled analysis, patients with insomnia had a significantly increased risk of MI (relative risk, 1.69; P < .00001), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and smoking.

Sleeping 5 hours or less was associated with a greater risk for MI than sleeping 6 hours, or 7-8 hours, but sleeping 9 hours or more was just as harmful.

Patients who had difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep – two symptoms of insomnia – had a 13% increased risk for MI compared with other patients (RR, 1.13; P = .003).

However, patients who had nonrestorative sleep and daytime dysfunction despite adequate sleep – which is common – did not have an increased risk of MI, compared with other patients (RR, 1.06; P = .46).

Women with insomnia had a 2.24-fold greater risk for MI than other women, whereas men with insomnia had a 2.03-fold greater risk for MI than other men.

Patients with insomnia had a greater risk for MI than those without insomnia in subgroups based on patients’ age (< 65 and > 65), follow up duration (≤ 5 years and > 5 years), and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia).

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia – difficulty falling or staying asleep – was associated with a 69% greater risk of having a myocardial infarction than among adults without insomnia, according to new research.

Those who slept 5 or fewer hours per night had the highest risk for MI, and those with both diabetes and insomnia had double the risk for MI, compared with patients without these comorbidities.

amenic181/Getty Images

The findings are from a meta-analysis of studies in more than 1 million patients, almost all without prior MI who were, on average, in their early 50s and followed for 9 years.

Yomna E. Dean, a medical student at Alexandria (Egypt) University, reported these results in a press briefing, and the study was simultaneously published in Clinical Cardiology. It will be presented at the upcoming at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Insomnia and ]at least] 5 hours of sleep are highly associated with increased incidence of MI, an association comparable to that of other MI risk factors and as such, it should be considered as a risk factor for MI and to be incorporated into MI prevention guidelines,” the researchers concluded.

“We believe that [insomnia] should be screened and patients should be educated about the importance of sleep because nowadays insomnia is no longer a disease – sleep deprivation could also be a life choice,” Ms, Dean told a press conference prior to the meeting.

“Clinicians must educate the patients about the importance of sleep in maintaining a healthy heart and encourage proper sleep hygiene,” Ms. Dean reiterated in an email. “And if a patient still has insomnia, other methods should be considered such as cognitive-behavior[al] therapy for insomnia [CBT-I].”
 

Adds to growing evidence

This study does not allow any conclusion about whether treating insomnia will reduce heart attack risk, Jennifer L. Martin, PhD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, noted in a comment. Nor does it report the diversity of study participants, since insomnia is also a health equity issue, she noted, and insomnia symptoms and comorbidities were self-reported.

However, this analysis “adds to the growing evidence that poor quality or insufficient sleep is associated with poor health,” said Dr. Martin, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this research.

The study reinforces the recommendation from the American Heart Association, which includes “Get Healthy Sleep” as one of “Life’s Essential 8” for heart health, Dr. Martin noted.

“Particularly in primary care where disease prevention and health promotion are important, clinicians should be asking all patients about their sleep – just like they ask about diet and exercise – as a key aspect of maintaining heart health,” she said.

Advice about basic sleep hygiene advice is a first step, she noted.

When improved sleep hygiene is not enough to address chronic insomnia, the AASM’s clinical practice guidelines and the guidelines of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, recommend first-line treatment with CBT-I, typically offered by a sleep specialist or mental health clinician.

Similarly, the American College of Physicians suggests that sleeping pills should be reserved for short-term use in patients who may not benefit sufficiently from CBT-I.
 

Sleeping too little, too much, equally harmful

“Studies have found that insomnia and subsequent sleep deprivation puts the body under stress,” Ms. Dean said. “This triggers cortisol release which could accelerate atherosclerosis,” and increase risk of MI.

For this analysis, the researchers identified nine observational studies, published from 1998 to 2019, with data on incident MI in adults who had insomnia.

The diagnosis of insomnia was based on ICD diagnostic codes or on the DSM‐5, which defines insomnia as the presence of any of the following three symptoms: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, or early morning awakening with inability to return to sleep. Patients with sleep apnea were excluded.

The studies were in populations in China, Germany, Norway, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States, in 1.1 million adults aged 18 and older. The patients had a mean age of 52 years and 13% had insomnia.

During follow-up, 2,406 of 153,881 patients with insomnia, and 12,398 of 1,030,375 patients without insomnia had an MI.

In the pooled analysis, patients with insomnia had a significantly increased risk of MI (relative risk, 1.69; P < .00001), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and smoking.

Sleeping 5 hours or less was associated with a greater risk for MI than sleeping 6 hours, or 7-8 hours, but sleeping 9 hours or more was just as harmful.

Patients who had difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep – two symptoms of insomnia – had a 13% increased risk for MI compared with other patients (RR, 1.13; P = .003).

However, patients who had nonrestorative sleep and daytime dysfunction despite adequate sleep – which is common – did not have an increased risk of MI, compared with other patients (RR, 1.06; P = .46).

Women with insomnia had a 2.24-fold greater risk for MI than other women, whereas men with insomnia had a 2.03-fold greater risk for MI than other men.

Patients with insomnia had a greater risk for MI than those without insomnia in subgroups based on patients’ age (< 65 and > 65), follow up duration (≤ 5 years and > 5 years), and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia).

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia – difficulty falling or staying asleep – was associated with a 69% greater risk of having a myocardial infarction than among adults without insomnia, according to new research.

Those who slept 5 or fewer hours per night had the highest risk for MI, and those with both diabetes and insomnia had double the risk for MI, compared with patients without these comorbidities.

amenic181/Getty Images

The findings are from a meta-analysis of studies in more than 1 million patients, almost all without prior MI who were, on average, in their early 50s and followed for 9 years.

Yomna E. Dean, a medical student at Alexandria (Egypt) University, reported these results in a press briefing, and the study was simultaneously published in Clinical Cardiology. It will be presented at the upcoming at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Insomnia and ]at least] 5 hours of sleep are highly associated with increased incidence of MI, an association comparable to that of other MI risk factors and as such, it should be considered as a risk factor for MI and to be incorporated into MI prevention guidelines,” the researchers concluded.

“We believe that [insomnia] should be screened and patients should be educated about the importance of sleep because nowadays insomnia is no longer a disease – sleep deprivation could also be a life choice,” Ms, Dean told a press conference prior to the meeting.

“Clinicians must educate the patients about the importance of sleep in maintaining a healthy heart and encourage proper sleep hygiene,” Ms. Dean reiterated in an email. “And if a patient still has insomnia, other methods should be considered such as cognitive-behavior[al] therapy for insomnia [CBT-I].”
 

Adds to growing evidence

This study does not allow any conclusion about whether treating insomnia will reduce heart attack risk, Jennifer L. Martin, PhD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, noted in a comment. Nor does it report the diversity of study participants, since insomnia is also a health equity issue, she noted, and insomnia symptoms and comorbidities were self-reported.

However, this analysis “adds to the growing evidence that poor quality or insufficient sleep is associated with poor health,” said Dr. Martin, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this research.

The study reinforces the recommendation from the American Heart Association, which includes “Get Healthy Sleep” as one of “Life’s Essential 8” for heart health, Dr. Martin noted.

“Particularly in primary care where disease prevention and health promotion are important, clinicians should be asking all patients about their sleep – just like they ask about diet and exercise – as a key aspect of maintaining heart health,” she said.

Advice about basic sleep hygiene advice is a first step, she noted.

When improved sleep hygiene is not enough to address chronic insomnia, the AASM’s clinical practice guidelines and the guidelines of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, recommend first-line treatment with CBT-I, typically offered by a sleep specialist or mental health clinician.

Similarly, the American College of Physicians suggests that sleeping pills should be reserved for short-term use in patients who may not benefit sufficiently from CBT-I.
 

Sleeping too little, too much, equally harmful

“Studies have found that insomnia and subsequent sleep deprivation puts the body under stress,” Ms. Dean said. “This triggers cortisol release which could accelerate atherosclerosis,” and increase risk of MI.

For this analysis, the researchers identified nine observational studies, published from 1998 to 2019, with data on incident MI in adults who had insomnia.

The diagnosis of insomnia was based on ICD diagnostic codes or on the DSM‐5, which defines insomnia as the presence of any of the following three symptoms: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, or early morning awakening with inability to return to sleep. Patients with sleep apnea were excluded.

The studies were in populations in China, Germany, Norway, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States, in 1.1 million adults aged 18 and older. The patients had a mean age of 52 years and 13% had insomnia.

During follow-up, 2,406 of 153,881 patients with insomnia, and 12,398 of 1,030,375 patients without insomnia had an MI.

In the pooled analysis, patients with insomnia had a significantly increased risk of MI (relative risk, 1.69; P < .00001), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and smoking.

Sleeping 5 hours or less was associated with a greater risk for MI than sleeping 6 hours, or 7-8 hours, but sleeping 9 hours or more was just as harmful.

Patients who had difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep – two symptoms of insomnia – had a 13% increased risk for MI compared with other patients (RR, 1.13; P = .003).

However, patients who had nonrestorative sleep and daytime dysfunction despite adequate sleep – which is common – did not have an increased risk of MI, compared with other patients (RR, 1.06; P = .46).

Women with insomnia had a 2.24-fold greater risk for MI than other women, whereas men with insomnia had a 2.03-fold greater risk for MI than other men.

Patients with insomnia had a greater risk for MI than those without insomnia in subgroups based on patients’ age (< 65 and > 65), follow up duration (≤ 5 years and > 5 years), and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia).

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fewer than 10% of American adults with type 2 diabetes who qualified for treatment with newer agents – such as an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist – actually received treatment with at least one drug from drug class in 2017-2020, based on a new analysis of just over a thousand adults who participated in a representative, biannual survey and self-reported a diabetes diagnosis.

The cost of these agents, and their uncertain cost-effectiveness at current prices, is likely a key driver of the low usage rate, say the authors of a brief report published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Clinical studies have shown that both GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors yield additional clinical benefits, compared with older treatments in reducing body weight and progression of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease,” write Shichao Tang, PhD, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

“However, these medications come at a substantially higher cost,” they stress.

Dr. Tang explained in an interview that the new study “points to prior studies about the high cost of these medications as a potential barrier to use, but more research is needed to understand cost-effectiveness and any potential barriers to use, including cost.”

The work “did not include research into cost-effectiveness or why the percentage of people already using these medications was low,” he emphasized.

Dr. Tang and colleagues used data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during two 2-year cycles between 2017 and 2020 that included 1,417 people who self-identified a diagnosis of diabetes.

Excluding those who likely had type 1 diabetes and those with incomplete data left 1,330 survey participants, including 1,133 (85%) who fit criteria for the treatment of type 2 diabetes with an agent from one of the two studied classes, as recommended in 2022 by a panel representing the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Among these 1,133 people – who represent more than 22 million American adults with type 2 diabetes who fit the 2022 criteria – a scant 3.7% were actually taking a GLP-1 agonist and 5.3% were taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“While it’s important to note that our data predate the 2022 recommendations, these drugs were offered as second-line therapy for patients with certain diabetes-related complications in 2017-2020” and hence provide potentially useful insights, noted Dr. Tang, a health economist with the CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Based on retail prices listed on a United States–based website, a 30-day supply of an oral SGLT2 inhibitor can cost about $550-$600 per month, while common subcutaneously injected GLP-1 receptor agonists can run from a few hundred dollars for a daily injection or close to $1,000 for a formulation administered weekly.

“Cost-effectiveness was not formally considered in the current guideline, but an assessment of cost-effectiveness may assist better targeting of interventions to achieve the greatest effect at a sustainable cost,” the researchers conclude.

The study received no commercial funding. None of the authors had relevant financial relationships.

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

Fewer than 10% of American adults with type 2 diabetes who qualified for treatment with newer agents – such as an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist – actually received treatment with at least one drug from drug class in 2017-2020, based on a new analysis of just over a thousand adults who participated in a representative, biannual survey and self-reported a diabetes diagnosis.

The cost of these agents, and their uncertain cost-effectiveness at current prices, is likely a key driver of the low usage rate, say the authors of a brief report published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Clinical studies have shown that both GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors yield additional clinical benefits, compared with older treatments in reducing body weight and progression of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease,” write Shichao Tang, PhD, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

“However, these medications come at a substantially higher cost,” they stress.

Dr. Tang explained in an interview that the new study “points to prior studies about the high cost of these medications as a potential barrier to use, but more research is needed to understand cost-effectiveness and any potential barriers to use, including cost.”

The work “did not include research into cost-effectiveness or why the percentage of people already using these medications was low,” he emphasized.

Dr. Tang and colleagues used data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during two 2-year cycles between 2017 and 2020 that included 1,417 people who self-identified a diagnosis of diabetes.

Excluding those who likely had type 1 diabetes and those with incomplete data left 1,330 survey participants, including 1,133 (85%) who fit criteria for the treatment of type 2 diabetes with an agent from one of the two studied classes, as recommended in 2022 by a panel representing the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Among these 1,133 people – who represent more than 22 million American adults with type 2 diabetes who fit the 2022 criteria – a scant 3.7% were actually taking a GLP-1 agonist and 5.3% were taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“While it’s important to note that our data predate the 2022 recommendations, these drugs were offered as second-line therapy for patients with certain diabetes-related complications in 2017-2020” and hence provide potentially useful insights, noted Dr. Tang, a health economist with the CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Based on retail prices listed on a United States–based website, a 30-day supply of an oral SGLT2 inhibitor can cost about $550-$600 per month, while common subcutaneously injected GLP-1 receptor agonists can run from a few hundred dollars for a daily injection or close to $1,000 for a formulation administered weekly.

“Cost-effectiveness was not formally considered in the current guideline, but an assessment of cost-effectiveness may assist better targeting of interventions to achieve the greatest effect at a sustainable cost,” the researchers conclude.

The study received no commercial funding. None of the authors had relevant financial relationships.

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

Fewer than 10% of American adults with type 2 diabetes who qualified for treatment with newer agents – such as an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist – actually received treatment with at least one drug from drug class in 2017-2020, based on a new analysis of just over a thousand adults who participated in a representative, biannual survey and self-reported a diabetes diagnosis.

The cost of these agents, and their uncertain cost-effectiveness at current prices, is likely a key driver of the low usage rate, say the authors of a brief report published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Clinical studies have shown that both GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors yield additional clinical benefits, compared with older treatments in reducing body weight and progression of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease,” write Shichao Tang, PhD, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

“However, these medications come at a substantially higher cost,” they stress.

Dr. Tang explained in an interview that the new study “points to prior studies about the high cost of these medications as a potential barrier to use, but more research is needed to understand cost-effectiveness and any potential barriers to use, including cost.”

The work “did not include research into cost-effectiveness or why the percentage of people already using these medications was low,” he emphasized.

Dr. Tang and colleagues used data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during two 2-year cycles between 2017 and 2020 that included 1,417 people who self-identified a diagnosis of diabetes.

Excluding those who likely had type 1 diabetes and those with incomplete data left 1,330 survey participants, including 1,133 (85%) who fit criteria for the treatment of type 2 diabetes with an agent from one of the two studied classes, as recommended in 2022 by a panel representing the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Among these 1,133 people – who represent more than 22 million American adults with type 2 diabetes who fit the 2022 criteria – a scant 3.7% were actually taking a GLP-1 agonist and 5.3% were taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“While it’s important to note that our data predate the 2022 recommendations, these drugs were offered as second-line therapy for patients with certain diabetes-related complications in 2017-2020” and hence provide potentially useful insights, noted Dr. Tang, a health economist with the CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Based on retail prices listed on a United States–based website, a 30-day supply of an oral SGLT2 inhibitor can cost about $550-$600 per month, while common subcutaneously injected GLP-1 receptor agonists can run from a few hundred dollars for a daily injection or close to $1,000 for a formulation administered weekly.

“Cost-effectiveness was not formally considered in the current guideline, but an assessment of cost-effectiveness may assist better targeting of interventions to achieve the greatest effect at a sustainable cost,” the researchers conclude.

The study received no commercial funding. None of the authors had relevant financial relationships.

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