Endocrinology

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Many changes in the evolution of the treatment of diabetes have occurred during this year and 2021. Randomized controlled trials have resulted in updated guidelines for the use of glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology. I am hoping my discussion about these major advances in this edition of Highlights will be helpful to those caring for patients with diabetes.

Tirzepatide

The first GLP1RA, exenatide, was released in April 2005. Since then, numerous daily and weekly drugs of this class have been developed. We’ve learned they are effective glucose lowering drugs, and the weekly agents dulaglutide and semaglutide have shown impressive weight reduction properties as well as cardiovascular benefits.

Secondary outcomes have also shown renal benefits to these agents, and studies for primary renal efficacy are pending. Due to all of these properties, the GLP1RAs are recommended as the first injectable for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, prior to insulin initiation.¹

The next generation of these agents are a combination of a GLP1RA and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) stimulates insulin secretion, inhibits glucagon secretion, delays gastric emptying, and has central effects inducing satiety.

We now understand that GIP is the main incretin hormone in those without diabetes, causative of most of the incretin effects. But the insulin response after GIP secretion in type 2 diabetes is strongly reduced. It is now appreciated that this poor effect of GIP can be reduced when used in combination with a GLP1RA. This combination incretin, called by some a “twincretin,” is the basis for the drug tirzepatide which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May of 2022.

The data supporting this agent for both diabetes and obesity are impressive. For example, in a 40-week study with a baseline HbA1c of 8.0%, those randomized to tirzepatide at 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg had HbA1c reductions of 1.87%, 1.89%, and 2.07% respectively.² Over 81% at all doses had HbA1c levels less than 6.5% at 40 weeks.

For the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses, weight change from baseline was 7.9%, 9.3%, and 11.0% respectively. Like older GLP1RAs, gastrointestinal side effects were the main problem. For the three doses, 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, had to stop the drug, compared with the 3% who stopped taking the placebo. In another study, tirzepatide was noninferior or superior at all three doses compared with semaglutide 1 mg weekly.³

In a population without diabetes, with 40% of patients having prediabetes, weight loss percentages for the three doses were 15.0%, 19.5%, and 20.9% respectively.⁴ Discontinuation percentages due to side effects were 4%-7%. The exciting part is we now have a drug that approaches weight loss from bariatric surgery. The cardiovascular and renal outcome trials are now underway, but the enthusiasm for this drug is clear from the data.

Like other GLP1RAs, the key is to start low and go slowly. It is recommended to start tirzepatide at 2.5 mg four times a week, then increase to 5 mg. Due to gastrointestinal side effects, some patients will do better at the lower dose before increasing. For those switching from another GLP1RA, there are no data to guide us but, in my practice, I start those patients at 5 mg weekly.
 

Continuous glucose monitoring

Data continue to accumulate that this form of glycemic self-monitoring is effective to reduce HbA1c levels and minimize hypoglycemia in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The most important change to the 2022 American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of care is recognizing CGM as level A evidence for those receiving basal insulin without mealtime insulin.⁵ There are four CGMs on the market, but most of the market uses the Dexcom G6 or the Libre 2. Both of these devices will be updated within the next few months to newer generation sensors.

While there are similarities and differences between the two devices, by late 2022 and early 2023 changes to both will reduce the dissimilarities.

The next generation Libre (Libre 3) will be continuous, and “scanning” will no longer be required.  For those unable to get insurance to cover CGM, the Libre will continue to be more affordable than the Dexcom. Alerts will be present on both, but the Dexcom G7 will be approved for both the arm and the abdomen. The Dexcom also can communicate with several automated insulin delivery systems and data can be shared real-time with family members.

For clinicians just starting patients on this technology, my suggestion is to focus on one system so both the provider and staff can become familiar with it. It is key to review downloaded glucose metrics, in addition to the “ambulatory glucose profile,” a graphic overview of daily glycemia where patterns can be identified. It is also helpful to ask for assistance from endocrinologists who have experience with CGMs, in addition to the representatives of the companies.

COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes

From the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020, it was clear that stress hyperglycemia and glucose dysregulation was an important observation for those infected. What was not known at the time is that for some, the hyperglycemia continued, and permanent diabetes ensued.

In one study of over 2.7 million U.S. veterans, men infected with COVID-19, but not women, were at a higher risk of new incident diabetes at 120 days after infection compared to no infection (odds ratio for men = 2.56).⁶

Another literature review using meta-analyses and cross-sectional studies concluded new-onset diabetes following COVID-19 infection can have a varied phenotype, with no risk factors, presenting from diabetic ketoacidosis to milder forms of diabetes.⁷

The current thought is that COVID-19 binds to the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 receptors which appear to be located on the beta-cells in the islet, resulting in insulin deficiency, in addition to the insulin resistance that seems to persist after the acute infection. Much more needs to be learned about this, but clinicians need to appreciate this appears to be a new form of diabetes and optimal treatments are not yet clear.

Dr. Hirsch is an endocrinologist, professor of medicine, and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle. He has received research grant support from Dexcom and Insulet and has provided consulting to Abbott, Roche, Lifescan, and GWave. You can contact him at [email protected].

References

1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S125-S143.

2. Rosenstock J et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-1): A double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:143-55.

3. Frias JP et al. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:503-15.

4. Jastreboff AM et al. Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:205-16.

5. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Diabetes technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S97-S112.

6. Wander PL et al. The incidence of diabetes in 2,777,768 veterans with and without recent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Diabetes Care 2022;45:782-8.

7. Joshi SC and Pozzilli P. COVID-19 induced diabetes: A novel presentation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022 Aug 6;191:110034.

Many changes in the evolution of the treatment of diabetes have occurred during this year and 2021. Randomized controlled trials have resulted in updated guidelines for the use of glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology. I am hoping my discussion about these major advances in this edition of Highlights will be helpful to those caring for patients with diabetes.

Tirzepatide

The first GLP1RA, exenatide, was released in April 2005. Since then, numerous daily and weekly drugs of this class have been developed. We’ve learned they are effective glucose lowering drugs, and the weekly agents dulaglutide and semaglutide have shown impressive weight reduction properties as well as cardiovascular benefits.

Secondary outcomes have also shown renal benefits to these agents, and studies for primary renal efficacy are pending. Due to all of these properties, the GLP1RAs are recommended as the first injectable for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, prior to insulin initiation.¹

The next generation of these agents are a combination of a GLP1RA and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) stimulates insulin secretion, inhibits glucagon secretion, delays gastric emptying, and has central effects inducing satiety.

We now understand that GIP is the main incretin hormone in those without diabetes, causative of most of the incretin effects. But the insulin response after GIP secretion in type 2 diabetes is strongly reduced. It is now appreciated that this poor effect of GIP can be reduced when used in combination with a GLP1RA. This combination incretin, called by some a “twincretin,” is the basis for the drug tirzepatide which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May of 2022.

The data supporting this agent for both diabetes and obesity are impressive. For example, in a 40-week study with a baseline HbA1c of 8.0%, those randomized to tirzepatide at 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg had HbA1c reductions of 1.87%, 1.89%, and 2.07% respectively.² Over 81% at all doses had HbA1c levels less than 6.5% at 40 weeks.

For the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses, weight change from baseline was 7.9%, 9.3%, and 11.0% respectively. Like older GLP1RAs, gastrointestinal side effects were the main problem. For the three doses, 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, had to stop the drug, compared with the 3% who stopped taking the placebo. In another study, tirzepatide was noninferior or superior at all three doses compared with semaglutide 1 mg weekly.³

In a population without diabetes, with 40% of patients having prediabetes, weight loss percentages for the three doses were 15.0%, 19.5%, and 20.9% respectively.⁴ Discontinuation percentages due to side effects were 4%-7%. The exciting part is we now have a drug that approaches weight loss from bariatric surgery. The cardiovascular and renal outcome trials are now underway, but the enthusiasm for this drug is clear from the data.

Like other GLP1RAs, the key is to start low and go slowly. It is recommended to start tirzepatide at 2.5 mg four times a week, then increase to 5 mg. Due to gastrointestinal side effects, some patients will do better at the lower dose before increasing. For those switching from another GLP1RA, there are no data to guide us but, in my practice, I start those patients at 5 mg weekly.
 

Continuous glucose monitoring

Data continue to accumulate that this form of glycemic self-monitoring is effective to reduce HbA1c levels and minimize hypoglycemia in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The most important change to the 2022 American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of care is recognizing CGM as level A evidence for those receiving basal insulin without mealtime insulin.⁵ There are four CGMs on the market, but most of the market uses the Dexcom G6 or the Libre 2. Both of these devices will be updated within the next few months to newer generation sensors.

While there are similarities and differences between the two devices, by late 2022 and early 2023 changes to both will reduce the dissimilarities.

The next generation Libre (Libre 3) will be continuous, and “scanning” will no longer be required.  For those unable to get insurance to cover CGM, the Libre will continue to be more affordable than the Dexcom. Alerts will be present on both, but the Dexcom G7 will be approved for both the arm and the abdomen. The Dexcom also can communicate with several automated insulin delivery systems and data can be shared real-time with family members.

For clinicians just starting patients on this technology, my suggestion is to focus on one system so both the provider and staff can become familiar with it. It is key to review downloaded glucose metrics, in addition to the “ambulatory glucose profile,” a graphic overview of daily glycemia where patterns can be identified. It is also helpful to ask for assistance from endocrinologists who have experience with CGMs, in addition to the representatives of the companies.

COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes

From the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020, it was clear that stress hyperglycemia and glucose dysregulation was an important observation for those infected. What was not known at the time is that for some, the hyperglycemia continued, and permanent diabetes ensued.

In one study of over 2.7 million U.S. veterans, men infected with COVID-19, but not women, were at a higher risk of new incident diabetes at 120 days after infection compared to no infection (odds ratio for men = 2.56).⁶

Another literature review using meta-analyses and cross-sectional studies concluded new-onset diabetes following COVID-19 infection can have a varied phenotype, with no risk factors, presenting from diabetic ketoacidosis to milder forms of diabetes.⁷

The current thought is that COVID-19 binds to the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 receptors which appear to be located on the beta-cells in the islet, resulting in insulin deficiency, in addition to the insulin resistance that seems to persist after the acute infection. Much more needs to be learned about this, but clinicians need to appreciate this appears to be a new form of diabetes and optimal treatments are not yet clear.

Dr. Hirsch is an endocrinologist, professor of medicine, and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle. He has received research grant support from Dexcom and Insulet and has provided consulting to Abbott, Roche, Lifescan, and GWave. You can contact him at [email protected].

References

1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S125-S143.

2. Rosenstock J et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-1): A double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:143-55.

3. Frias JP et al. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:503-15.

4. Jastreboff AM et al. Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:205-16.

5. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Diabetes technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S97-S112.

6. Wander PL et al. The incidence of diabetes in 2,777,768 veterans with and without recent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Diabetes Care 2022;45:782-8.

7. Joshi SC and Pozzilli P. COVID-19 induced diabetes: A novel presentation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022 Aug 6;191:110034.

Many changes in the evolution of the treatment of diabetes have occurred during this year and 2021. Randomized controlled trials have resulted in updated guidelines for the use of glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology. I am hoping my discussion about these major advances in this edition of Highlights will be helpful to those caring for patients with diabetes.

Tirzepatide

The first GLP1RA, exenatide, was released in April 2005. Since then, numerous daily and weekly drugs of this class have been developed. We’ve learned they are effective glucose lowering drugs, and the weekly agents dulaglutide and semaglutide have shown impressive weight reduction properties as well as cardiovascular benefits.

Secondary outcomes have also shown renal benefits to these agents, and studies for primary renal efficacy are pending. Due to all of these properties, the GLP1RAs are recommended as the first injectable for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, prior to insulin initiation.¹

The next generation of these agents are a combination of a GLP1RA and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) stimulates insulin secretion, inhibits glucagon secretion, delays gastric emptying, and has central effects inducing satiety.

We now understand that GIP is the main incretin hormone in those without diabetes, causative of most of the incretin effects. But the insulin response after GIP secretion in type 2 diabetes is strongly reduced. It is now appreciated that this poor effect of GIP can be reduced when used in combination with a GLP1RA. This combination incretin, called by some a “twincretin,” is the basis for the drug tirzepatide which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May of 2022.

The data supporting this agent for both diabetes and obesity are impressive. For example, in a 40-week study with a baseline HbA1c of 8.0%, those randomized to tirzepatide at 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg had HbA1c reductions of 1.87%, 1.89%, and 2.07% respectively.² Over 81% at all doses had HbA1c levels less than 6.5% at 40 weeks.

For the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses, weight change from baseline was 7.9%, 9.3%, and 11.0% respectively. Like older GLP1RAs, gastrointestinal side effects were the main problem. For the three doses, 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, had to stop the drug, compared with the 3% who stopped taking the placebo. In another study, tirzepatide was noninferior or superior at all three doses compared with semaglutide 1 mg weekly.³

In a population without diabetes, with 40% of patients having prediabetes, weight loss percentages for the three doses were 15.0%, 19.5%, and 20.9% respectively.⁴ Discontinuation percentages due to side effects were 4%-7%. The exciting part is we now have a drug that approaches weight loss from bariatric surgery. The cardiovascular and renal outcome trials are now underway, but the enthusiasm for this drug is clear from the data.

Like other GLP1RAs, the key is to start low and go slowly. It is recommended to start tirzepatide at 2.5 mg four times a week, then increase to 5 mg. Due to gastrointestinal side effects, some patients will do better at the lower dose before increasing. For those switching from another GLP1RA, there are no data to guide us but, in my practice, I start those patients at 5 mg weekly.
 

Continuous glucose monitoring

Data continue to accumulate that this form of glycemic self-monitoring is effective to reduce HbA1c levels and minimize hypoglycemia in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The most important change to the 2022 American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of care is recognizing CGM as level A evidence for those receiving basal insulin without mealtime insulin.⁵ There are four CGMs on the market, but most of the market uses the Dexcom G6 or the Libre 2. Both of these devices will be updated within the next few months to newer generation sensors.

While there are similarities and differences between the two devices, by late 2022 and early 2023 changes to both will reduce the dissimilarities.

The next generation Libre (Libre 3) will be continuous, and “scanning” will no longer be required.  For those unable to get insurance to cover CGM, the Libre will continue to be more affordable than the Dexcom. Alerts will be present on both, but the Dexcom G7 will be approved for both the arm and the abdomen. The Dexcom also can communicate with several automated insulin delivery systems and data can be shared real-time with family members.

For clinicians just starting patients on this technology, my suggestion is to focus on one system so both the provider and staff can become familiar with it. It is key to review downloaded glucose metrics, in addition to the “ambulatory glucose profile,” a graphic overview of daily glycemia where patterns can be identified. It is also helpful to ask for assistance from endocrinologists who have experience with CGMs, in addition to the representatives of the companies.

COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes

From the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020, it was clear that stress hyperglycemia and glucose dysregulation was an important observation for those infected. What was not known at the time is that for some, the hyperglycemia continued, and permanent diabetes ensued.

In one study of over 2.7 million U.S. veterans, men infected with COVID-19, but not women, were at a higher risk of new incident diabetes at 120 days after infection compared to no infection (odds ratio for men = 2.56).⁶

Another literature review using meta-analyses and cross-sectional studies concluded new-onset diabetes following COVID-19 infection can have a varied phenotype, with no risk factors, presenting from diabetic ketoacidosis to milder forms of diabetes.⁷

The current thought is that COVID-19 binds to the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 receptors which appear to be located on the beta-cells in the islet, resulting in insulin deficiency, in addition to the insulin resistance that seems to persist after the acute infection. Much more needs to be learned about this, but clinicians need to appreciate this appears to be a new form of diabetes and optimal treatments are not yet clear.

Dr. Hirsch is an endocrinologist, professor of medicine, and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle. He has received research grant support from Dexcom and Insulet and has provided consulting to Abbott, Roche, Lifescan, and GWave. You can contact him at [email protected].

References

1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S125-S143.

2. Rosenstock J et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-1): A double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:143-55.

3. Frias JP et al. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:503-15.

4. Jastreboff AM et al. Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:205-16.

5. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Diabetes technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S97-S112.

6. Wander PL et al. The incidence of diabetes in 2,777,768 veterans with and without recent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Diabetes Care 2022;45:782-8.

7. Joshi SC and Pozzilli P. COVID-19 induced diabetes: A novel presentation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022 Aug 6;191:110034.

Vitamin D deficiency has a causative role in the systemic inflammation that commonly accompanies it, with inflammation declining, reflected by reductions in elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), as vitamin D levels increase to normal levels, new research shows.

However, there is no reverse effect between the two: Changes in CRP levels did not appear to affect vitamin D levels.

“This is the first study of its kind, and the first to show that the well-known relationship between vitamin D status and CRP is at least in part driven by vitamin D,” first author Elina Hypponen, PhD, a professor in nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“Given that the serum CRP level is a widely used biomarker for chronic inflammation, these results suggest that improving vitamin D status may reduce chronic inflammation, but only for people with vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen and coauthors reported in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Vitamin D associated with CRP in ‘L-shaped’ manner

Nutritional factors are known to influence systemic inflammation in a variety of ways. However, there has been debate over the association between vitamin D – specifically, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), an indicator of vitamin D status – and CRP, with some reports of observational associations between the two disputed in more robust randomized trials.

To further evaluate the relationship, the authors performed a bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis, using a cohort of 294,970 unrelated participants of White/British ancestry in the UK Biobank, the largest cohort to date with measured serum 25(OH)D concentrations, they noted.

Overall, the average 25(OH)D concentration was 50.0 nmol/L (range, 10-340 nmol/L), with 11.7% (n = 34,403) of participants having concentrations of less than 25 nmol/L, considered deficient.

The analysis showed that genetically predicted serum 25(OH)D was associated with serum CRP in an L-shaped manner, with CRP levels, and hence inflammation, sharply decreasing in relation to increasing 25(OH)D concentration to normal levels.

However, the relationship was only significant among participants with 25(OH)D levels in the deficiency range (< 25 nmol/L), with the association leveling off at about 50 nmol/L of 25(OH)D, which is generally considered a normal level.

The association was supported in further stratified Mendelian randomization analyses, which confirmed an inverse association between serum 25(OH)D in the deficiency range and CRP, but not with higher concentrations of serum vitamin D.

Conversely, neither linear nor nonlinear Mendelian randomization analyses showed a causal effect of serum CRP level on 25(OH)D concentrations.

The findings suggest that “improving vitamin D status in the deficiency range could reduce systemic low-grade inflammation and potentially mitigate the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component,” the authors noted.

Dr. Hypponen added that the greatest reductions in CRP are observed with correction of the most severe vitamin D deficiency.

“The strongest benefits of improving concentrations will be seen for people with severe deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen said in an interview.

“In our study, much of the benefit was achieved when people reached the National Academy of Sciences endorsed cutoff of 50 nmol/L [for vitamin D sufficiency].”
 

Prohormone effects?

The anti-inflammatory effects observed with serum vitamin D could be related to its role as a prohormone that can impact vitamin D receptor–expressing immune cells, such as monocytes, B cells, T cells, and antigen-presenting cells, the authors noted.

“Indeed, cell experiments have shown that active vitamin D can inhibit the production of proinflammatory cytokines, including [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha, interleukin-1b, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12, and promote the production of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory cytokine,” they explained.

In that regard, adequate vitamin D concentrations could be important in preventing inflammation-related complications from obesity and reduce the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative conditions, and others, the authors noted.
 

Previous studies unable to assess effect of deficiency

While the current findings contradict other studies that have used Mendelian randomization and showed no causal effect of 25(OH)D on CRP, those previous studies only used a standard linear Mendelian randomization method that could not rule out the possibility of a ‘threshold effect’ restricted to vitamin D deficiency, the authors noted.

“Indeed, it is logical to expect that improving vitamin D status would be relevant only in the presence of vitamin D deficiency, whereas any further additions may be redundant and, in the ... extreme of supplementation, might become toxic,” they wrote.

However, the nonlinear Mendelian randomization approach used in the current study allows for better detection of the association, and the authors point out that the method has also been recently used in research showing an adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular disease risk and mortality, which would not be visible using the standard linear Mendelian randomization approach.

Meanwhile, the current findings add to broader research showing benefits of increases in vitamin D to be mainly limited to those who are deficient, with limited benefit of supplementation for those who are not, Dr. Hypponen emphasized.

“We have repeatedly seen evidence for health benefits for increasing vitamin D concentrations in individuals with very low levels, while for others, there appears to be little to no benefit,” Dr. Hypponen said in a press statement. 

“These findings highlight the importance of avoiding clinical vitamin D deficiency and provide further evidence for the wide-ranging effects of hormonal vitamin D,” she added.

The study was financially supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D deficiency has a causative role in the systemic inflammation that commonly accompanies it, with inflammation declining, reflected by reductions in elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), as vitamin D levels increase to normal levels, new research shows.

However, there is no reverse effect between the two: Changes in CRP levels did not appear to affect vitamin D levels.

“This is the first study of its kind, and the first to show that the well-known relationship between vitamin D status and CRP is at least in part driven by vitamin D,” first author Elina Hypponen, PhD, a professor in nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“Given that the serum CRP level is a widely used biomarker for chronic inflammation, these results suggest that improving vitamin D status may reduce chronic inflammation, but only for people with vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen and coauthors reported in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Vitamin D associated with CRP in ‘L-shaped’ manner

Nutritional factors are known to influence systemic inflammation in a variety of ways. However, there has been debate over the association between vitamin D – specifically, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), an indicator of vitamin D status – and CRP, with some reports of observational associations between the two disputed in more robust randomized trials.

To further evaluate the relationship, the authors performed a bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis, using a cohort of 294,970 unrelated participants of White/British ancestry in the UK Biobank, the largest cohort to date with measured serum 25(OH)D concentrations, they noted.

Overall, the average 25(OH)D concentration was 50.0 nmol/L (range, 10-340 nmol/L), with 11.7% (n = 34,403) of participants having concentrations of less than 25 nmol/L, considered deficient.

The analysis showed that genetically predicted serum 25(OH)D was associated with serum CRP in an L-shaped manner, with CRP levels, and hence inflammation, sharply decreasing in relation to increasing 25(OH)D concentration to normal levels.

However, the relationship was only significant among participants with 25(OH)D levels in the deficiency range (< 25 nmol/L), with the association leveling off at about 50 nmol/L of 25(OH)D, which is generally considered a normal level.

The association was supported in further stratified Mendelian randomization analyses, which confirmed an inverse association between serum 25(OH)D in the deficiency range and CRP, but not with higher concentrations of serum vitamin D.

Conversely, neither linear nor nonlinear Mendelian randomization analyses showed a causal effect of serum CRP level on 25(OH)D concentrations.

The findings suggest that “improving vitamin D status in the deficiency range could reduce systemic low-grade inflammation and potentially mitigate the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component,” the authors noted.

Dr. Hypponen added that the greatest reductions in CRP are observed with correction of the most severe vitamin D deficiency.

“The strongest benefits of improving concentrations will be seen for people with severe deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen said in an interview.

“In our study, much of the benefit was achieved when people reached the National Academy of Sciences endorsed cutoff of 50 nmol/L [for vitamin D sufficiency].”
 

Prohormone effects?

The anti-inflammatory effects observed with serum vitamin D could be related to its role as a prohormone that can impact vitamin D receptor–expressing immune cells, such as monocytes, B cells, T cells, and antigen-presenting cells, the authors noted.

“Indeed, cell experiments have shown that active vitamin D can inhibit the production of proinflammatory cytokines, including [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha, interleukin-1b, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12, and promote the production of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory cytokine,” they explained.

In that regard, adequate vitamin D concentrations could be important in preventing inflammation-related complications from obesity and reduce the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative conditions, and others, the authors noted.
 

Previous studies unable to assess effect of deficiency

While the current findings contradict other studies that have used Mendelian randomization and showed no causal effect of 25(OH)D on CRP, those previous studies only used a standard linear Mendelian randomization method that could not rule out the possibility of a ‘threshold effect’ restricted to vitamin D deficiency, the authors noted.

“Indeed, it is logical to expect that improving vitamin D status would be relevant only in the presence of vitamin D deficiency, whereas any further additions may be redundant and, in the ... extreme of supplementation, might become toxic,” they wrote.

However, the nonlinear Mendelian randomization approach used in the current study allows for better detection of the association, and the authors point out that the method has also been recently used in research showing an adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular disease risk and mortality, which would not be visible using the standard linear Mendelian randomization approach.

Meanwhile, the current findings add to broader research showing benefits of increases in vitamin D to be mainly limited to those who are deficient, with limited benefit of supplementation for those who are not, Dr. Hypponen emphasized.

“We have repeatedly seen evidence for health benefits for increasing vitamin D concentrations in individuals with very low levels, while for others, there appears to be little to no benefit,” Dr. Hypponen said in a press statement. 

“These findings highlight the importance of avoiding clinical vitamin D deficiency and provide further evidence for the wide-ranging effects of hormonal vitamin D,” she added.

The study was financially supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D deficiency has a causative role in the systemic inflammation that commonly accompanies it, with inflammation declining, reflected by reductions in elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), as vitamin D levels increase to normal levels, new research shows.

However, there is no reverse effect between the two: Changes in CRP levels did not appear to affect vitamin D levels.

“This is the first study of its kind, and the first to show that the well-known relationship between vitamin D status and CRP is at least in part driven by vitamin D,” first author Elina Hypponen, PhD, a professor in nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“Given that the serum CRP level is a widely used biomarker for chronic inflammation, these results suggest that improving vitamin D status may reduce chronic inflammation, but only for people with vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen and coauthors reported in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Vitamin D associated with CRP in ‘L-shaped’ manner

Nutritional factors are known to influence systemic inflammation in a variety of ways. However, there has been debate over the association between vitamin D – specifically, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), an indicator of vitamin D status – and CRP, with some reports of observational associations between the two disputed in more robust randomized trials.

To further evaluate the relationship, the authors performed a bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis, using a cohort of 294,970 unrelated participants of White/British ancestry in the UK Biobank, the largest cohort to date with measured serum 25(OH)D concentrations, they noted.

Overall, the average 25(OH)D concentration was 50.0 nmol/L (range, 10-340 nmol/L), with 11.7% (n = 34,403) of participants having concentrations of less than 25 nmol/L, considered deficient.

The analysis showed that genetically predicted serum 25(OH)D was associated with serum CRP in an L-shaped manner, with CRP levels, and hence inflammation, sharply decreasing in relation to increasing 25(OH)D concentration to normal levels.

However, the relationship was only significant among participants with 25(OH)D levels in the deficiency range (< 25 nmol/L), with the association leveling off at about 50 nmol/L of 25(OH)D, which is generally considered a normal level.

The association was supported in further stratified Mendelian randomization analyses, which confirmed an inverse association between serum 25(OH)D in the deficiency range and CRP, but not with higher concentrations of serum vitamin D.

Conversely, neither linear nor nonlinear Mendelian randomization analyses showed a causal effect of serum CRP level on 25(OH)D concentrations.

The findings suggest that “improving vitamin D status in the deficiency range could reduce systemic low-grade inflammation and potentially mitigate the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component,” the authors noted.

Dr. Hypponen added that the greatest reductions in CRP are observed with correction of the most severe vitamin D deficiency.

“The strongest benefits of improving concentrations will be seen for people with severe deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen said in an interview.

“In our study, much of the benefit was achieved when people reached the National Academy of Sciences endorsed cutoff of 50 nmol/L [for vitamin D sufficiency].”
 

Prohormone effects?

The anti-inflammatory effects observed with serum vitamin D could be related to its role as a prohormone that can impact vitamin D receptor–expressing immune cells, such as monocytes, B cells, T cells, and antigen-presenting cells, the authors noted.

“Indeed, cell experiments have shown that active vitamin D can inhibit the production of proinflammatory cytokines, including [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha, interleukin-1b, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12, and promote the production of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory cytokine,” they explained.

In that regard, adequate vitamin D concentrations could be important in preventing inflammation-related complications from obesity and reduce the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative conditions, and others, the authors noted.
 

Previous studies unable to assess effect of deficiency

While the current findings contradict other studies that have used Mendelian randomization and showed no causal effect of 25(OH)D on CRP, those previous studies only used a standard linear Mendelian randomization method that could not rule out the possibility of a ‘threshold effect’ restricted to vitamin D deficiency, the authors noted.

“Indeed, it is logical to expect that improving vitamin D status would be relevant only in the presence of vitamin D deficiency, whereas any further additions may be redundant and, in the ... extreme of supplementation, might become toxic,” they wrote.

However, the nonlinear Mendelian randomization approach used in the current study allows for better detection of the association, and the authors point out that the method has also been recently used in research showing an adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular disease risk and mortality, which would not be visible using the standard linear Mendelian randomization approach.

Meanwhile, the current findings add to broader research showing benefits of increases in vitamin D to be mainly limited to those who are deficient, with limited benefit of supplementation for those who are not, Dr. Hypponen emphasized.

“We have repeatedly seen evidence for health benefits for increasing vitamin D concentrations in individuals with very low levels, while for others, there appears to be little to no benefit,” Dr. Hypponen said in a press statement. 

“These findings highlight the importance of avoiding clinical vitamin D deficiency and provide further evidence for the wide-ranging effects of hormonal vitamin D,” she added.

The study was financially supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Discontinuing antithyroid drugs during early pregnancy is linked to a possible rebound of hyperthyroidism and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, new research shows.

“Our study provides preliminary evidence that the risk of rebound increases in women with subnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and/or positive thyrotropin receptor antibody (TRAb) who stop antithyroid drugs in early pregnancy,” first author Xin Hou told this news organization.

“When discussing the pros and cons of antithyroid drug withdrawal early in pregnancy [clinicians] should consider the level of TSH and TRAb in early pregnancy,” said Hou, of the department of endocrinology and metabolism, Institute of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang.

Suvi Turunen, MD, of the University of Oulu (Finland), who has also conducted research on the issue, said the study adds important insights.

“I find this study very interesting,” Dr. Turunen said in an interview. “It is well known that medical treatment of hyperthyroidism outweighs the potential harms of antithyroid treatment.”

The new findings add to the evidence, she added. “I think that withdrawal of antithyroid drugs should be carefully considered, especially with autoantibody-positive patients,” Dr. Turunen said.
 

Hyperthyroidism a risk in pregnancy – with or without treatment

The potential risks of hyperthyroidism in pregnancy are well established and can range from preeclampsia to premature birth or miscarriage.

However, antithyroid drugs, including methimazole and propylthiouracil, carry their own risks. In crossing the placental barrier, the drugs can increase the risk of birth defects, particularly during 6-10 weeks of gestation, yet their discontinuation is linked to as much as a 50%-60% risk of relapse, the authors explain.

Because of the risks, the American Thyroid Association recommends that “women with a stable euthyroid state on 5-10 mg methimazole per day achieved within a few months, and a falling TRAb level, are likely candidates to withdraw from antithyroid drug therapy in early pregnancy,” the authors noted.

However, as the recommendations for women who are already pregnant are largely based on evidence from nonpregnant patients, Hou and colleagues sought to evaluate withdrawal among women who were pregnant.

For the study, published in Thyroid, they enrolled 63 women who were pregnant and part of an outpatient service of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, between September 2014 and March 2017, who had well-controlled hyperthyroidism in early pregnancy and discontinued the drugs.

The women were an average age of 27 years, and 28 were multigravida. Twenty-two had a history of miscarriage.

A follow-up of the patients until the end of their pregnancy showed that, overall, 20 (31.7%) had a rebound of hyperthyroidism during their pregnancy after withdrawing from the drugs.

Key factors associated with the highest risk of a rebound after discontinuation included having subnormal TSH levels (TSH < 0.35 mIU/L; odds ratio, 5.12; P  = .03) or having positive TRAb (TRAb > 1.75 IU/L; OR, 3.79; P = .02) at the time of medication withdrawal, compared with those with either normal TSH levels or negative TRAb.

The combination of both subnormal TSH and positive TRAb at the time of antithyroid medication withdrawal further boosted the risk of hyperthyroidism rebound (83.3%, 5 of 6), compared with those who had both normal TSH and negative TRAb (13%, 3 of 23; OR, 33.33; P = .003).

Adverse pregnancy outcomes increased

Importantly, among the 20 patients who had a rebound, 11 (55%) had adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature birth, induced labor, gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, compared with only 4 (9.3%) of the 43 who had no rebound (OR, 11.92; P = .0002).

Neonatal abnormalities were also higher among those experiencing a rebound (20% vs. 4.7%), however, the authors noted that “larger prospective studies are required to conclude whether antithyroid drug withdrawal affects fetal outcome.”

In the rebound group, the mean duration of antithyroid medication use was 24.7 months versus 35.1 months in the nonrebound group, however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07). And 40% of the rebound group had a history of miscarriage versus 32.6% in the non-rebound group, but was also not significantly different (P = .56).

The authors noted that half of those in the rebound group developed hyperthyroidism more than 4 weeks after their withdrawal from antithyroid medications, “which seemed to have circumvented the most sensitive period of teratogenesis between 6 and 10 weeks of pregnancy.”

Hou added that restarting antithyroid medication did not increase the risk of adverse outcomes for offspring.

“A low dose of antithyroid medications may be a good choice for women with subnormal TSH and/or positive TRAb in early pregnancy,” Hou concluded. “Because of the small size of our study, a larger prospective study is needed to overcome the potential selection bias and to verify the conclusions.”
 

Findings consistent with Finnish study

In her own recent study, which included 2,144 women in Finland who experienced hyperthyroidism during pregnancy, Dr. Turunen and colleagues found that having hyperthyroidism, with or without antithyroid drug treatment, was associated with an increased odds of pregnancy and/or prenatal complications, compared with those without thyroid disease.

“In our study, we observed an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes also in mothers with previous diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperthyroidism, not only with overt hyperthyroidism treated with antithyroid drugs,” she told this news organization.

“I think that especially those patients with positive antibodies [TRAbs] are at risk even if they are euthyroid,” she noted. “Withdrawal of antithyroid drugs in these patients is a risk.”

“Probably continuing antithyroid treatment with low dose is a better option,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Turunen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Discontinuing antithyroid drugs during early pregnancy is linked to a possible rebound of hyperthyroidism and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, new research shows.

“Our study provides preliminary evidence that the risk of rebound increases in women with subnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and/or positive thyrotropin receptor antibody (TRAb) who stop antithyroid drugs in early pregnancy,” first author Xin Hou told this news organization.

“When discussing the pros and cons of antithyroid drug withdrawal early in pregnancy [clinicians] should consider the level of TSH and TRAb in early pregnancy,” said Hou, of the department of endocrinology and metabolism, Institute of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang.

Suvi Turunen, MD, of the University of Oulu (Finland), who has also conducted research on the issue, said the study adds important insights.

“I find this study very interesting,” Dr. Turunen said in an interview. “It is well known that medical treatment of hyperthyroidism outweighs the potential harms of antithyroid treatment.”

The new findings add to the evidence, she added. “I think that withdrawal of antithyroid drugs should be carefully considered, especially with autoantibody-positive patients,” Dr. Turunen said.
 

Hyperthyroidism a risk in pregnancy – with or without treatment

The potential risks of hyperthyroidism in pregnancy are well established and can range from preeclampsia to premature birth or miscarriage.

However, antithyroid drugs, including methimazole and propylthiouracil, carry their own risks. In crossing the placental barrier, the drugs can increase the risk of birth defects, particularly during 6-10 weeks of gestation, yet their discontinuation is linked to as much as a 50%-60% risk of relapse, the authors explain.

Because of the risks, the American Thyroid Association recommends that “women with a stable euthyroid state on 5-10 mg methimazole per day achieved within a few months, and a falling TRAb level, are likely candidates to withdraw from antithyroid drug therapy in early pregnancy,” the authors noted.

However, as the recommendations for women who are already pregnant are largely based on evidence from nonpregnant patients, Hou and colleagues sought to evaluate withdrawal among women who were pregnant.

For the study, published in Thyroid, they enrolled 63 women who were pregnant and part of an outpatient service of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, between September 2014 and March 2017, who had well-controlled hyperthyroidism in early pregnancy and discontinued the drugs.

The women were an average age of 27 years, and 28 were multigravida. Twenty-two had a history of miscarriage.

A follow-up of the patients until the end of their pregnancy showed that, overall, 20 (31.7%) had a rebound of hyperthyroidism during their pregnancy after withdrawing from the drugs.

Key factors associated with the highest risk of a rebound after discontinuation included having subnormal TSH levels (TSH < 0.35 mIU/L; odds ratio, 5.12; P  = .03) or having positive TRAb (TRAb > 1.75 IU/L; OR, 3.79; P = .02) at the time of medication withdrawal, compared with those with either normal TSH levels or negative TRAb.

The combination of both subnormal TSH and positive TRAb at the time of antithyroid medication withdrawal further boosted the risk of hyperthyroidism rebound (83.3%, 5 of 6), compared with those who had both normal TSH and negative TRAb (13%, 3 of 23; OR, 33.33; P = .003).

Adverse pregnancy outcomes increased

Importantly, among the 20 patients who had a rebound, 11 (55%) had adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature birth, induced labor, gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, compared with only 4 (9.3%) of the 43 who had no rebound (OR, 11.92; P = .0002).

Neonatal abnormalities were also higher among those experiencing a rebound (20% vs. 4.7%), however, the authors noted that “larger prospective studies are required to conclude whether antithyroid drug withdrawal affects fetal outcome.”

In the rebound group, the mean duration of antithyroid medication use was 24.7 months versus 35.1 months in the nonrebound group, however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07). And 40% of the rebound group had a history of miscarriage versus 32.6% in the non-rebound group, but was also not significantly different (P = .56).

The authors noted that half of those in the rebound group developed hyperthyroidism more than 4 weeks after their withdrawal from antithyroid medications, “which seemed to have circumvented the most sensitive period of teratogenesis between 6 and 10 weeks of pregnancy.”

Hou added that restarting antithyroid medication did not increase the risk of adverse outcomes for offspring.

“A low dose of antithyroid medications may be a good choice for women with subnormal TSH and/or positive TRAb in early pregnancy,” Hou concluded. “Because of the small size of our study, a larger prospective study is needed to overcome the potential selection bias and to verify the conclusions.”
 

Findings consistent with Finnish study

In her own recent study, which included 2,144 women in Finland who experienced hyperthyroidism during pregnancy, Dr. Turunen and colleagues found that having hyperthyroidism, with or without antithyroid drug treatment, was associated with an increased odds of pregnancy and/or prenatal complications, compared with those without thyroid disease.

“In our study, we observed an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes also in mothers with previous diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperthyroidism, not only with overt hyperthyroidism treated with antithyroid drugs,” she told this news organization.

“I think that especially those patients with positive antibodies [TRAbs] are at risk even if they are euthyroid,” she noted. “Withdrawal of antithyroid drugs in these patients is a risk.”

“Probably continuing antithyroid treatment with low dose is a better option,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Turunen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Discontinuing antithyroid drugs during early pregnancy is linked to a possible rebound of hyperthyroidism and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, new research shows.

“Our study provides preliminary evidence that the risk of rebound increases in women with subnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and/or positive thyrotropin receptor antibody (TRAb) who stop antithyroid drugs in early pregnancy,” first author Xin Hou told this news organization.

“When discussing the pros and cons of antithyroid drug withdrawal early in pregnancy [clinicians] should consider the level of TSH and TRAb in early pregnancy,” said Hou, of the department of endocrinology and metabolism, Institute of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang.

Suvi Turunen, MD, of the University of Oulu (Finland), who has also conducted research on the issue, said the study adds important insights.

“I find this study very interesting,” Dr. Turunen said in an interview. “It is well known that medical treatment of hyperthyroidism outweighs the potential harms of antithyroid treatment.”

The new findings add to the evidence, she added. “I think that withdrawal of antithyroid drugs should be carefully considered, especially with autoantibody-positive patients,” Dr. Turunen said.
 

Hyperthyroidism a risk in pregnancy – with or without treatment

The potential risks of hyperthyroidism in pregnancy are well established and can range from preeclampsia to premature birth or miscarriage.

However, antithyroid drugs, including methimazole and propylthiouracil, carry their own risks. In crossing the placental barrier, the drugs can increase the risk of birth defects, particularly during 6-10 weeks of gestation, yet their discontinuation is linked to as much as a 50%-60% risk of relapse, the authors explain.

Because of the risks, the American Thyroid Association recommends that “women with a stable euthyroid state on 5-10 mg methimazole per day achieved within a few months, and a falling TRAb level, are likely candidates to withdraw from antithyroid drug therapy in early pregnancy,” the authors noted.

However, as the recommendations for women who are already pregnant are largely based on evidence from nonpregnant patients, Hou and colleagues sought to evaluate withdrawal among women who were pregnant.

For the study, published in Thyroid, they enrolled 63 women who were pregnant and part of an outpatient service of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, between September 2014 and March 2017, who had well-controlled hyperthyroidism in early pregnancy and discontinued the drugs.

The women were an average age of 27 years, and 28 were multigravida. Twenty-two had a history of miscarriage.

A follow-up of the patients until the end of their pregnancy showed that, overall, 20 (31.7%) had a rebound of hyperthyroidism during their pregnancy after withdrawing from the drugs.

Key factors associated with the highest risk of a rebound after discontinuation included having subnormal TSH levels (TSH < 0.35 mIU/L; odds ratio, 5.12; P  = .03) or having positive TRAb (TRAb > 1.75 IU/L; OR, 3.79; P = .02) at the time of medication withdrawal, compared with those with either normal TSH levels or negative TRAb.

The combination of both subnormal TSH and positive TRAb at the time of antithyroid medication withdrawal further boosted the risk of hyperthyroidism rebound (83.3%, 5 of 6), compared with those who had both normal TSH and negative TRAb (13%, 3 of 23; OR, 33.33; P = .003).

Adverse pregnancy outcomes increased

Importantly, among the 20 patients who had a rebound, 11 (55%) had adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature birth, induced labor, gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, compared with only 4 (9.3%) of the 43 who had no rebound (OR, 11.92; P = .0002).

Neonatal abnormalities were also higher among those experiencing a rebound (20% vs. 4.7%), however, the authors noted that “larger prospective studies are required to conclude whether antithyroid drug withdrawal affects fetal outcome.”

In the rebound group, the mean duration of antithyroid medication use was 24.7 months versus 35.1 months in the nonrebound group, however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07). And 40% of the rebound group had a history of miscarriage versus 32.6% in the non-rebound group, but was also not significantly different (P = .56).

The authors noted that half of those in the rebound group developed hyperthyroidism more than 4 weeks after their withdrawal from antithyroid medications, “which seemed to have circumvented the most sensitive period of teratogenesis between 6 and 10 weeks of pregnancy.”

Hou added that restarting antithyroid medication did not increase the risk of adverse outcomes for offspring.

“A low dose of antithyroid medications may be a good choice for women with subnormal TSH and/or positive TRAb in early pregnancy,” Hou concluded. “Because of the small size of our study, a larger prospective study is needed to overcome the potential selection bias and to verify the conclusions.”
 

Findings consistent with Finnish study

In her own recent study, which included 2,144 women in Finland who experienced hyperthyroidism during pregnancy, Dr. Turunen and colleagues found that having hyperthyroidism, with or without antithyroid drug treatment, was associated with an increased odds of pregnancy and/or prenatal complications, compared with those without thyroid disease.

“In our study, we observed an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes also in mothers with previous diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperthyroidism, not only with overt hyperthyroidism treated with antithyroid drugs,” she told this news organization.

“I think that especially those patients with positive antibodies [TRAbs] are at risk even if they are euthyroid,” she noted. “Withdrawal of antithyroid drugs in these patients is a risk.”

“Probably continuing antithyroid treatment with low dose is a better option,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Turunen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Healthy children who are underweight in the first 2 years of life continue with a lower-than-average body mass index and height-for-age through age 10, according to new research.

The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
 

Methods and results

The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.

The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.

At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.

The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.

Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.

Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
 

Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight

This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.

“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.

Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”

Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.

She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.

“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”

She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.

Healthy children who are underweight in the first 2 years of life continue with a lower-than-average body mass index and height-for-age through age 10, according to new research.

The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
 

Methods and results

The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.

The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.

At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.

The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.

Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.

Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
 

Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight

This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.

“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.

Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”

Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.

She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.

“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”

She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.

Healthy children who are underweight in the first 2 years of life continue with a lower-than-average body mass index and height-for-age through age 10, according to new research.

The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
 

Methods and results

The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.

The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.

At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.

The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.

Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.

Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
 

Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight

This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.

“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.

Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”

Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.

She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.

“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”

She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 55-YEAR-OLD MAN with hypertension and untreated hepatitis C virus (HCV) was referred to the Dermatology Clinic after reporting a 2-year history of photosensitivity and intermittent episodes of blistering and scars on the dorsal side of his hands and feet. No alcohol consumption or drug use was reported.

Physical examination revealed small and shallow erosions on the dorsal aspect of the hands and feet (but no visible blisters) and milium cysts (FIGURE 1A). Additionally, hypertrichosis and hyperpigmentation were observed in the zygomatic areas (FIGURE 1B). Complete blood count and kidney function test results were within normal ranges. Liver function tests showed slightly elevated levels of alanine aminotransferase (79 U/L; normal range, 0-41 U/L), aspartate aminotransferase (62 U/L; normal range, 0-40 U/L), and ferritin (121 ng/mL; normal range, 30-100 ng/mL). Serologies for syphilis, HIV, and hepatitis B virus were negative.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The clinical presentation, along with the elevated laboratory values, suggested that this might be a case of porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT). Therefore, a sample of the patient’s urine was examined under Wood lamp and compared to a sample from a healthy control. In the sample of urine from our patient, a vivid red-pink fluorescence could be visualized under the lamp (FIGURE 2), confirming the diagnosis.

The porphyrias are a group of metabolic diseases that affect the heme biosynthesis. They can be classified into 1 of 3 groups, according to clinical features:

• acute hepatic porphyrias, with neurovisceral symptoms (eg, acute intermittent porphyria),
• nonblistering cutaneous porphyrias, with severe photosensitivity but without bullae formation (eg, erythropoietic protoporphyria), or
• blistering cutaneous porphyrias (eg, PCT, hepatoerythropoietic porphyria, and variegate porphyria).

PCT is the most common type of porphyria, with a global prevalence of 1 per 10,000 people.^1,2 It affects adults after the third or fourth decade of life.

Porphyria cutanea tarda has a global prevalance of 1 per 10,000 people.

PCT involves dysfunction of the uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase enzyme (UROD), the fifth enzyme in heme biosynthesis, which catalyzes the conversion of uroporphyrinogen to coproporphyrinogen. This dysfunction causes the accumulation of porphyrinogens that are auto-oxidized to photosensitizing porphyrins.^1-4 PCT can be classified as “sporadic” or “familial” based on the absence or presence of UROD mutation. Approximately 80% of cases of PCT are sporadic.²

In sporadic PCT, triggers for UROD dysfunction include alcohol use, use of estrogens, hemochromatosis or iron overload, chronic HCV infection, and HIV infection.^1-4 HCV (which this patient had) is the most common infection associated with sporadic PCT, with a prevalence of about 50% among these patients.⁵

Continue to: Dermatologic manifestations of PCT

Dermatologic manifestations of PCT include photosensitivity, skin fragility, vesicles, bullae, erosions, and crusts observed in sun-exposed areas. A nonvirilizing type of hypertrichosis may appear prominently on the temples and the cheeks.^2-4 After blisters rupture, atrophy and scarring occur. Milia cysts can form on the dorsal side of the hands and fingers. Less common manifestations include pruritus, scarring alopecia, sclerodermatous changes, and periorbital purple-red suffusion.

Hepatic involvement is demonstrated with elevated serum transaminases and ­gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase. Hepatomegaly is common, and cirrhosis manifests in 30% to 40% of patients.^2-5 On liver biopsy, some degree of siderosis is found in 80% of patients with PCT, and most of them have increased levels of serum iron. The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with PCT is greater than in patients with other liver diseases.²

A Wood lamp can be a useful diagnostic first step

Plasma or urine porphyrin lab tests are the gold standard for PCT diagnosis. These tests can be followed by more specific tests (eg, porphyrin fractionation) to exclude other forms of porphyria. However, if plasma or urine porphyrin testing is not readily available, a good first step is a Wood lamp exam, which can be performed on urine or stool. (Plasma or urine porphyrin testing may ultimately be necessary if there is doubt about the diagnosis following the Wood lamp screening.) Histopathologic examination does not confirm the diagnosis of PCT⁴; however, it can be helpful in differential diagnosis.

Wood lamp is a source of long-wave UV light (320 to 400 nm), visualized as a purple or violet light. When porphyrins are present in a urine sample, a red-pink fluorescence may be seen.^3,4,6 The Wood lamp examination should be performed in a completely dark room after the lamp has been warmed up for about 1 minute; time should be allowed for the clinician’s vision to adapt to the dark.⁶ There are no data regarding the sensitivity or specificity of the Wood lamp test in the diagnosis of PCT.

These conditions also cause skin fragility and photosensitivity

The differential diagnosis for PCT includes diseases that also cause skin fragility, blistering, or photosensitivity, such as pseudoporphyria, bullous systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA).³

Continue to: In pseudoporphyria

In pseudoporphyria, the clinical findings may be indistinguishable from PCT. Thus, the patient’s history will be especially important; suspect pseudoporphyria if the patient has a history of chronic renal failure or use of a photosensitizing drug.^1,3

Bullous SLE usually manifests with systemic involvement and widespread, tense bullae. Serologic investigation will demonstrate the presence of antinuclear antibodies in high titers (> 1:80), as well as other circulating autoantibodies.

Skin lesions of EBA usually manifest with skin fragility and noninflammatory tense bullae in traumatized skin, such as the extensor surfaces of the hands, feet, and fingers.

None of the above-mentioned diagnoses manifest with hypertrichosis or red-pink fluorescent urine on Wood lamp, and results of porphyrin studies would be normal.³

Address triggers, provide treatment

Once the diagnosis is confirmed, steps must be taken to avoid triggering factors, such as any alcohol consumption, use of estrogen, sun exposure (until plasma porphyrin levels are normal), and potential sources of excessive iron intake.

If plasma or urine porphyrin testing is not readily available, a good first step is a Wood lamp exam.

Two therapeutic options are available for treating PCT—whether it’s sporadic or familial. Phlebotomy sessions reduce iron overload and iron depletion and may prevent the formation of a porphomethene inhibitor of UROD. The other treatment option is antimalarial agents—usually hydroxychloroquine— and is indicated for patients with lower serum ferritin levels.^1-4 In patients with HCV-associated PCT, effective treatment of the infection has resulted in resolution of the PCT, in some cases.³

Treatment involving phlebotomy or an antimalarial agent can be stopped when plasma porphyrins reach normal levels.

Our patient was initially managed with 2 sessions of phlebotomy. He subsequently received treatment for the HCV infection at another hospital.

A 55-YEAR-OLD MAN with hypertension and untreated hepatitis C virus (HCV) was referred to the Dermatology Clinic after reporting a 2-year history of photosensitivity and intermittent episodes of blistering and scars on the dorsal side of his hands and feet. No alcohol consumption or drug use was reported.

Physical examination revealed small and shallow erosions on the dorsal aspect of the hands and feet (but no visible blisters) and milium cysts (FIGURE 1A). Additionally, hypertrichosis and hyperpigmentation were observed in the zygomatic areas (FIGURE 1B). Complete blood count and kidney function test results were within normal ranges. Liver function tests showed slightly elevated levels of alanine aminotransferase (79 U/L; normal range, 0-41 U/L), aspartate aminotransferase (62 U/L; normal range, 0-40 U/L), and ferritin (121 ng/mL; normal range, 30-100 ng/mL). Serologies for syphilis, HIV, and hepatitis B virus were negative.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The clinical presentation, along with the elevated laboratory values, suggested that this might be a case of porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT). Therefore, a sample of the patient’s urine was examined under Wood lamp and compared to a sample from a healthy control. In the sample of urine from our patient, a vivid red-pink fluorescence could be visualized under the lamp (FIGURE 2), confirming the diagnosis.

The porphyrias are a group of metabolic diseases that affect the heme biosynthesis. They can be classified into 1 of 3 groups, according to clinical features:

• acute hepatic porphyrias, with neurovisceral symptoms (eg, acute intermittent porphyria),
• nonblistering cutaneous porphyrias, with severe photosensitivity but without bullae formation (eg, erythropoietic protoporphyria), or
• blistering cutaneous porphyrias (eg, PCT, hepatoerythropoietic porphyria, and variegate porphyria).

PCT is the most common type of porphyria, with a global prevalence of 1 per 10,000 people.^1,2 It affects adults after the third or fourth decade of life.

Porphyria cutanea tarda has a global prevalance of 1 per 10,000 people.

PCT involves dysfunction of the uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase enzyme (UROD), the fifth enzyme in heme biosynthesis, which catalyzes the conversion of uroporphyrinogen to coproporphyrinogen. This dysfunction causes the accumulation of porphyrinogens that are auto-oxidized to photosensitizing porphyrins.^1-4 PCT can be classified as “sporadic” or “familial” based on the absence or presence of UROD mutation. Approximately 80% of cases of PCT are sporadic.²

In sporadic PCT, triggers for UROD dysfunction include alcohol use, use of estrogens, hemochromatosis or iron overload, chronic HCV infection, and HIV infection.^1-4 HCV (which this patient had) is the most common infection associated with sporadic PCT, with a prevalence of about 50% among these patients.⁵

Continue to: Dermatologic manifestations of PCT

Dermatologic manifestations of PCT include photosensitivity, skin fragility, vesicles, bullae, erosions, and crusts observed in sun-exposed areas. A nonvirilizing type of hypertrichosis may appear prominently on the temples and the cheeks.^2-4 After blisters rupture, atrophy and scarring occur. Milia cysts can form on the dorsal side of the hands and fingers. Less common manifestations include pruritus, scarring alopecia, sclerodermatous changes, and periorbital purple-red suffusion.

Hepatic involvement is demonstrated with elevated serum transaminases and ­gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase. Hepatomegaly is common, and cirrhosis manifests in 30% to 40% of patients.^2-5 On liver biopsy, some degree of siderosis is found in 80% of patients with PCT, and most of them have increased levels of serum iron. The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with PCT is greater than in patients with other liver diseases.²

A Wood lamp can be a useful diagnostic first step

Plasma or urine porphyrin lab tests are the gold standard for PCT diagnosis. These tests can be followed by more specific tests (eg, porphyrin fractionation) to exclude other forms of porphyria. However, if plasma or urine porphyrin testing is not readily available, a good first step is a Wood lamp exam, which can be performed on urine or stool. (Plasma or urine porphyrin testing may ultimately be necessary if there is doubt about the diagnosis following the Wood lamp screening.) Histopathologic examination does not confirm the diagnosis of PCT⁴; however, it can be helpful in differential diagnosis.

Wood lamp is a source of long-wave UV light (320 to 400 nm), visualized as a purple or violet light. When porphyrins are present in a urine sample, a red-pink fluorescence may be seen.^3,4,6 The Wood lamp examination should be performed in a completely dark room after the lamp has been warmed up for about 1 minute; time should be allowed for the clinician’s vision to adapt to the dark.⁶ There are no data regarding the sensitivity or specificity of the Wood lamp test in the diagnosis of PCT.

These conditions also cause skin fragility and photosensitivity

The differential diagnosis for PCT includes diseases that also cause skin fragility, blistering, or photosensitivity, such as pseudoporphyria, bullous systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA).³

Continue to: In pseudoporphyria

In pseudoporphyria, the clinical findings may be indistinguishable from PCT. Thus, the patient’s history will be especially important; suspect pseudoporphyria if the patient has a history of chronic renal failure or use of a photosensitizing drug.^1,3

Bullous SLE usually manifests with systemic involvement and widespread, tense bullae. Serologic investigation will demonstrate the presence of antinuclear antibodies in high titers (> 1:80), as well as other circulating autoantibodies.

Skin lesions of EBA usually manifest with skin fragility and noninflammatory tense bullae in traumatized skin, such as the extensor surfaces of the hands, feet, and fingers.

None of the above-mentioned diagnoses manifest with hypertrichosis or red-pink fluorescent urine on Wood lamp, and results of porphyrin studies would be normal.³

Address triggers, provide treatment

Once the diagnosis is confirmed, steps must be taken to avoid triggering factors, such as any alcohol consumption, use of estrogen, sun exposure (until plasma porphyrin levels are normal), and potential sources of excessive iron intake.

If plasma or urine porphyrin testing is not readily available, a good first step is a Wood lamp exam.

Two therapeutic options are available for treating PCT—whether it’s sporadic or familial. Phlebotomy sessions reduce iron overload and iron depletion and may prevent the formation of a porphomethene inhibitor of UROD. The other treatment option is antimalarial agents—usually hydroxychloroquine— and is indicated for patients with lower serum ferritin levels.^1-4 In patients with HCV-associated PCT, effective treatment of the infection has resulted in resolution of the PCT, in some cases.³

Treatment involving phlebotomy or an antimalarial agent can be stopped when plasma porphyrins reach normal levels.

Our patient was initially managed with 2 sessions of phlebotomy. He subsequently received treatment for the HCV infection at another hospital.

A 55-YEAR-OLD MAN with hypertension and untreated hepatitis C virus (HCV) was referred to the Dermatology Clinic after reporting a 2-year history of photosensitivity and intermittent episodes of blistering and scars on the dorsal side of his hands and feet. No alcohol consumption or drug use was reported.

Physical examination revealed small and shallow erosions on the dorsal aspect of the hands and feet (but no visible blisters) and milium cysts (FIGURE 1A). Additionally, hypertrichosis and hyperpigmentation were observed in the zygomatic areas (FIGURE 1B). Complete blood count and kidney function test results were within normal ranges. Liver function tests showed slightly elevated levels of alanine aminotransferase (79 U/L; normal range, 0-41 U/L), aspartate aminotransferase (62 U/L; normal range, 0-40 U/L), and ferritin (121 ng/mL; normal range, 30-100 ng/mL). Serologies for syphilis, HIV, and hepatitis B virus were negative.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The clinical presentation, along with the elevated laboratory values, suggested that this might be a case of porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT). Therefore, a sample of the patient’s urine was examined under Wood lamp and compared to a sample from a healthy control. In the sample of urine from our patient, a vivid red-pink fluorescence could be visualized under the lamp (FIGURE 2), confirming the diagnosis.

The porphyrias are a group of metabolic diseases that affect the heme biosynthesis. They can be classified into 1 of 3 groups, according to clinical features:

• acute hepatic porphyrias, with neurovisceral symptoms (eg, acute intermittent porphyria),
• nonblistering cutaneous porphyrias, with severe photosensitivity but without bullae formation (eg, erythropoietic protoporphyria), or
• blistering cutaneous porphyrias (eg, PCT, hepatoerythropoietic porphyria, and variegate porphyria).

PCT is the most common type of porphyria, with a global prevalence of 1 per 10,000 people.^1,2 It affects adults after the third or fourth decade of life.

Porphyria cutanea tarda has a global prevalance of 1 per 10,000 people.

PCT involves dysfunction of the uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase enzyme (UROD), the fifth enzyme in heme biosynthesis, which catalyzes the conversion of uroporphyrinogen to coproporphyrinogen. This dysfunction causes the accumulation of porphyrinogens that are auto-oxidized to photosensitizing porphyrins.^1-4 PCT can be classified as “sporadic” or “familial” based on the absence or presence of UROD mutation. Approximately 80% of cases of PCT are sporadic.²

In sporadic PCT, triggers for UROD dysfunction include alcohol use, use of estrogens, hemochromatosis or iron overload, chronic HCV infection, and HIV infection.^1-4 HCV (which this patient had) is the most common infection associated with sporadic PCT, with a prevalence of about 50% among these patients.⁵

Continue to: Dermatologic manifestations of PCT

Dermatologic manifestations of PCT include photosensitivity, skin fragility, vesicles, bullae, erosions, and crusts observed in sun-exposed areas. A nonvirilizing type of hypertrichosis may appear prominently on the temples and the cheeks.^2-4 After blisters rupture, atrophy and scarring occur. Milia cysts can form on the dorsal side of the hands and fingers. Less common manifestations include pruritus, scarring alopecia, sclerodermatous changes, and periorbital purple-red suffusion.

Hepatic involvement is demonstrated with elevated serum transaminases and ­gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase. Hepatomegaly is common, and cirrhosis manifests in 30% to 40% of patients.^2-5 On liver biopsy, some degree of siderosis is found in 80% of patients with PCT, and most of them have increased levels of serum iron. The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with PCT is greater than in patients with other liver diseases.²

A Wood lamp can be a useful diagnostic first step

Plasma or urine porphyrin lab tests are the gold standard for PCT diagnosis. These tests can be followed by more specific tests (eg, porphyrin fractionation) to exclude other forms of porphyria. However, if plasma or urine porphyrin testing is not readily available, a good first step is a Wood lamp exam, which can be performed on urine or stool. (Plasma or urine porphyrin testing may ultimately be necessary if there is doubt about the diagnosis following the Wood lamp screening.) Histopathologic examination does not confirm the diagnosis of PCT⁴; however, it can be helpful in differential diagnosis.

Wood lamp is a source of long-wave UV light (320 to 400 nm), visualized as a purple or violet light. When porphyrins are present in a urine sample, a red-pink fluorescence may be seen.^3,4,6 The Wood lamp examination should be performed in a completely dark room after the lamp has been warmed up for about 1 minute; time should be allowed for the clinician’s vision to adapt to the dark.⁶ There are no data regarding the sensitivity or specificity of the Wood lamp test in the diagnosis of PCT.

These conditions also cause skin fragility and photosensitivity

The differential diagnosis for PCT includes diseases that also cause skin fragility, blistering, or photosensitivity, such as pseudoporphyria, bullous systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA).³

Continue to: In pseudoporphyria

In pseudoporphyria, the clinical findings may be indistinguishable from PCT. Thus, the patient’s history will be especially important; suspect pseudoporphyria if the patient has a history of chronic renal failure or use of a photosensitizing drug.^1,3

Bullous SLE usually manifests with systemic involvement and widespread, tense bullae. Serologic investigation will demonstrate the presence of antinuclear antibodies in high titers (> 1:80), as well as other circulating autoantibodies.

Skin lesions of EBA usually manifest with skin fragility and noninflammatory tense bullae in traumatized skin, such as the extensor surfaces of the hands, feet, and fingers.

None of the above-mentioned diagnoses manifest with hypertrichosis or red-pink fluorescent urine on Wood lamp, and results of porphyrin studies would be normal.³

Address triggers, provide treatment

Once the diagnosis is confirmed, steps must be taken to avoid triggering factors, such as any alcohol consumption, use of estrogen, sun exposure (until plasma porphyrin levels are normal), and potential sources of excessive iron intake.

If plasma or urine porphyrin testing is not readily available, a good first step is a Wood lamp exam.

Two therapeutic options are available for treating PCT—whether it’s sporadic or familial. Phlebotomy sessions reduce iron overload and iron depletion and may prevent the formation of a porphomethene inhibitor of UROD. The other treatment option is antimalarial agents—usually hydroxychloroquine— and is indicated for patients with lower serum ferritin levels.^1-4 In patients with HCV-associated PCT, effective treatment of the infection has resulted in resolution of the PCT, in some cases.³

Treatment involving phlebotomy or an antimalarial agent can be stopped when plasma porphyrins reach normal levels.

Our patient was initially managed with 2 sessions of phlebotomy. He subsequently received treatment for the HCV infection at another hospital.