Endocrinology

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Adults who need to track their blood pressure to find out if they have hypertension prefer to do it at home rather than at a clinic or kiosk or with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), according to a new study.

“From a patient-centered perspective, home BP monitoring is the most acceptable method for diagnosing hypertension, although participants were willing to complete ABPM and appreciated its accuracy,” said Beverly Green, MD, MPH, of Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Green presented the study Sept. 29 during the virtual American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2021.

“Health care professionals should work toward relying less on in-clinic visits to diagnose hypertension and supporting their patients in taking their blood pressure measurements at home,” Dr. Green said in an AHA news release.

“Home blood pressure monitoring is empowering and improves our ability to identify and treat hypertension, and to prevent strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, and cardiovascular death,” she added.
 

Convenience is key

The BP-CHECK study was a three-group, randomized, controlled diagnostic study that tested the accuracy and acceptability of office, home, and kiosk BP monitoring against the gold-standard – ABPM – for diagnosing hypertension. Dr. Green presented the results on patient adherence and acceptability of these methods.

Those assigned to clinic measurements were asked to return to the clinic for at least one additional BP check, as is routine in diagnosing hypertension in clinical practice.

Those in the home group were given and trained to use a Bluetooth/web-enabled home BP monitor and were asked to take their BP twice a day (morning and evening, with two measurements each time) for 5 days.

Those in the kiosk group were trained to use a BP kiosk with a smart card and were asked to return to the kiosk (or a nearby pharmacy with the same kiosk) on 3 separate days and measure their BP three times at each visit.

All participants were asked to complete their group-assigned diagnostic regimens in 3 weeks and then to complete 24-hour ABPM.

The trial enrolled 510 adults who presented to Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics with elevated BP (mean, 150/88 mm Hg) but who had not yet been diagnosed with hypertension. Their mean age was 59 years, 80% of the study participants were White, and 51% were male.

Adherence to the monitoring regimen was highest in the home BP group (90.6%), followed by the clinic group (87.2%), and lowest in the kiosk group (67.9%). Adherence to ABPM among all participants was 91.6%.

Overall, acceptability was highest for the home BP group, followed by the clinic and kiosk groups; 24-hour ABPM monitoring was the least acceptable option.

Home was the “overwhelming” stated preference when asked before randomization and after, Dr. Green said.

The findings come as no surprise to Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee. “Patients will do what’s most convenient for them,” he told this news organization.

“We know from other studies that really all you need to do is measure the blood pressure twice a day for 3 days. That will give you a good idea what that patient’s blood pressure is as it relates to future cardiac events,” said Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“We should really begin to focus more on these home, self-measured blood pressures using validated devices, and that’s important because a lot of the devices out there aren’t validated,” he explained.

“Patients with hypertension should have a blood pressure monitor at home that is validated and should be instructed in how to use it properly,” Dr. Lawrence concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Green and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults who need to track their blood pressure to find out if they have hypertension prefer to do it at home rather than at a clinic or kiosk or with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), according to a new study.

“From a patient-centered perspective, home BP monitoring is the most acceptable method for diagnosing hypertension, although participants were willing to complete ABPM and appreciated its accuracy,” said Beverly Green, MD, MPH, of Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Green presented the study Sept. 29 during the virtual American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2021.

“Health care professionals should work toward relying less on in-clinic visits to diagnose hypertension and supporting their patients in taking their blood pressure measurements at home,” Dr. Green said in an AHA news release.

“Home blood pressure monitoring is empowering and improves our ability to identify and treat hypertension, and to prevent strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, and cardiovascular death,” she added.
 

Convenience is key

The BP-CHECK study was a three-group, randomized, controlled diagnostic study that tested the accuracy and acceptability of office, home, and kiosk BP monitoring against the gold-standard – ABPM – for diagnosing hypertension. Dr. Green presented the results on patient adherence and acceptability of these methods.

Those assigned to clinic measurements were asked to return to the clinic for at least one additional BP check, as is routine in diagnosing hypertension in clinical practice.

Those in the home group were given and trained to use a Bluetooth/web-enabled home BP monitor and were asked to take their BP twice a day (morning and evening, with two measurements each time) for 5 days.

Those in the kiosk group were trained to use a BP kiosk with a smart card and were asked to return to the kiosk (or a nearby pharmacy with the same kiosk) on 3 separate days and measure their BP three times at each visit.

All participants were asked to complete their group-assigned diagnostic regimens in 3 weeks and then to complete 24-hour ABPM.

The trial enrolled 510 adults who presented to Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics with elevated BP (mean, 150/88 mm Hg) but who had not yet been diagnosed with hypertension. Their mean age was 59 years, 80% of the study participants were White, and 51% were male.

Adherence to the monitoring regimen was highest in the home BP group (90.6%), followed by the clinic group (87.2%), and lowest in the kiosk group (67.9%). Adherence to ABPM among all participants was 91.6%.

Overall, acceptability was highest for the home BP group, followed by the clinic and kiosk groups; 24-hour ABPM monitoring was the least acceptable option.

Home was the “overwhelming” stated preference when asked before randomization and after, Dr. Green said.

The findings come as no surprise to Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee. “Patients will do what’s most convenient for them,” he told this news organization.

“We know from other studies that really all you need to do is measure the blood pressure twice a day for 3 days. That will give you a good idea what that patient’s blood pressure is as it relates to future cardiac events,” said Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“We should really begin to focus more on these home, self-measured blood pressures using validated devices, and that’s important because a lot of the devices out there aren’t validated,” he explained.

“Patients with hypertension should have a blood pressure monitor at home that is validated and should be instructed in how to use it properly,” Dr. Lawrence concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Green and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults who need to track their blood pressure to find out if they have hypertension prefer to do it at home rather than at a clinic or kiosk or with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), according to a new study.

“From a patient-centered perspective, home BP monitoring is the most acceptable method for diagnosing hypertension, although participants were willing to complete ABPM and appreciated its accuracy,” said Beverly Green, MD, MPH, of Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Green presented the study Sept. 29 during the virtual American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2021.

“Health care professionals should work toward relying less on in-clinic visits to diagnose hypertension and supporting their patients in taking their blood pressure measurements at home,” Dr. Green said in an AHA news release.

“Home blood pressure monitoring is empowering and improves our ability to identify and treat hypertension, and to prevent strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, and cardiovascular death,” she added.
 

Convenience is key

The BP-CHECK study was a three-group, randomized, controlled diagnostic study that tested the accuracy and acceptability of office, home, and kiosk BP monitoring against the gold-standard – ABPM – for diagnosing hypertension. Dr. Green presented the results on patient adherence and acceptability of these methods.

Those assigned to clinic measurements were asked to return to the clinic for at least one additional BP check, as is routine in diagnosing hypertension in clinical practice.

Those in the home group were given and trained to use a Bluetooth/web-enabled home BP monitor and were asked to take their BP twice a day (morning and evening, with two measurements each time) for 5 days.

Those in the kiosk group were trained to use a BP kiosk with a smart card and were asked to return to the kiosk (or a nearby pharmacy with the same kiosk) on 3 separate days and measure their BP three times at each visit.

All participants were asked to complete their group-assigned diagnostic regimens in 3 weeks and then to complete 24-hour ABPM.

The trial enrolled 510 adults who presented to Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics with elevated BP (mean, 150/88 mm Hg) but who had not yet been diagnosed with hypertension. Their mean age was 59 years, 80% of the study participants were White, and 51% were male.

Adherence to the monitoring regimen was highest in the home BP group (90.6%), followed by the clinic group (87.2%), and lowest in the kiosk group (67.9%). Adherence to ABPM among all participants was 91.6%.

Overall, acceptability was highest for the home BP group, followed by the clinic and kiosk groups; 24-hour ABPM monitoring was the least acceptable option.

Home was the “overwhelming” stated preference when asked before randomization and after, Dr. Green said.

The findings come as no surprise to Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee. “Patients will do what’s most convenient for them,” he told this news organization.

“We know from other studies that really all you need to do is measure the blood pressure twice a day for 3 days. That will give you a good idea what that patient’s blood pressure is as it relates to future cardiac events,” said Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“We should really begin to focus more on these home, self-measured blood pressures using validated devices, and that’s important because a lot of the devices out there aren’t validated,” he explained.

“Patients with hypertension should have a blood pressure monitor at home that is validated and should be instructed in how to use it properly,” Dr. Lawrence concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Green and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Women who have taken hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms will be relieved by findings from a large British case-control study reporting no overall increased risk of dementia as long as exposure is not long term.

Publishing results online Sept. 29 in BMJ, ( Yana Vinogradova, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues made this observation after conducting nested case-control studies involving more than 700,000 women in two U.K. primary care databases. The investigators undertook the study to clarify disparate findings over the past 2 decades on dementia risk associated with menopausal hormone replacement,

“The findings show that menopausal hormone therapy, or MHT, is generally safe for women who require it,” Dr. Vinogradova said in an interview. “A small risk association was found for future development of Alzheimer’s disease increasing with the length of menopausal hormone treatment.” This finding applied only to combined treatments of estrogen plus progestin and became measurable only after long-term use of 5 years or more. “These risk associations, only for long-term use of MHT, are in line with findings related to breast cancer risk,” she said.

The findings also align with previous biological speculations that estrogen combined with progestin may have a harmful effect on the aging brain, she added, “but we also cannot completely rule out other possible factors from our study. For example, some women who were in fact suffering from early signs of Alzheimer’s disease similar to menopausal symptoms may have continued with their menopausal therapy for longer than other women.”

Concerns about the risk of dementia with MHT date back to 2003 when data from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study showed that incidence of all-cause dementia doubled in women age 65 years and older after treatment with conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate for an average of 4 years. More recently, Finnish research has yielded conflicting data about risks.

The study

The investigators used two U.K. primary care databases (QResearch and CPRD) to analyze MHT prescriptions for 118,501 women age 55 and older diagnosed with dementia between 1998 and 2020 and 497,416 female controls matched by age and general practice, but with no record of dementia.

The cohort was older: mean age of cases was 83.5 years and mean duration of treatment was 16 years for an average age of 67.7 at first captured prescription, considerably later than when most women begin MHT. Relevant factors such as family history, smoking, alcohol consumption, preexisting conditions, and other prescribed drugs were taken into account.

Overall, 16,291 (14%) dementia cases and 68,726 (14%) controls had been exposed to MHT in the period up to 3 years before diagnosis.

After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, the researchers found no overall associations between hormone therapy and risk of dementia, regardless of hormone type, application, dose, or duration of treatment. Within the subgroup of women younger than 80 years who had been taking estrogen-only therapy for 10 years or more, a slightly decreased risk of dementia emerged: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94.

However, an analysis of dementia cases with a diagnosis specifically of Alzheimer’s disease showed a slight increase in risk associated with estrogen-progestin therapy. Increased risks of developing specifically Alzheimer’s disease emerged in those who had used combination therapy for 5-9 years (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20) and also for 10 years or more (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33). This risk rose gradually with each year of exposure, reaching an average 11% increased risk for use from 5-9 years and an average 19% for use 10 years or more – equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman-years.

According to Jill M. Rabin, MD, a professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and an ob.gyn. with Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., the findings make sense for two reasons. “First, there are other health issues noted in women taking long-term combination hormonal therapy such as an increased risk of breast cancer,” she said in an interview. “Second, progesterone is recommended for women who have retained their uterus in order to counteract the potential effects of estrogen on the uterine lining causing possible overgrowth. There are systemic effects however of progesterone, as it counteracts estrogen, potentially decreasing its benefit on the neurological system.”

She added that this analysis is synchronous with other biological studies demonstrating possible neuroprotective effects of estrogen on the brain, especially among younger women. “The vascular system in the newly menopausal female is noted to have less endothelial and intimal thickening, better blood flow and oxygenation, and in general less vascular damage. Estrogen in these relatively younger, newly menopausal women may help to stabilize the vasculature as well as the neurologic system. On the other hand, estrogen therapy over the age of 80 may be delivered to a neurovasculature damaged with age and time, may be somewhat less beneficial.” Older women also have fewer estrogen receptors and, in general, other medical comorbidities.

According to the authors, the findings will be helpful to policy-makers, doctors, and patients when making choices about hormone therapy.

In an accompanying editorial, two U.S. researchers called the findings reassuring. Pauline M. Maki, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, however, pointed out that the current study with its older cohort and older age at MHT initiation could not address the important issue of the “timing hypothesis” – namely, that earlier initiation of hormone therapy might confer greater protection against Alzheimer’s disease, compared with later use.

And while the current observations do not change the recommendation that MHT should not be used to prevent dementia, they are helpful for providers to put dementia findings in context for patients. “The primary indication for hormone therapy continues to be the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and the current study should provide reassurance for women and their providers when treatment is prescribed for that reason,” they wrote.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research.

Coauthor Dr. Julia Hippisley-Cox is a director of QResearch, EMIS Health, which supplies the QResearch database used for this work, and is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk., which produces software to implement clinical risk algorithms.

Women who have taken hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms will be relieved by findings from a large British case-control study reporting no overall increased risk of dementia as long as exposure is not long term.

Publishing results online Sept. 29 in BMJ, ( Yana Vinogradova, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues made this observation after conducting nested case-control studies involving more than 700,000 women in two U.K. primary care databases. The investigators undertook the study to clarify disparate findings over the past 2 decades on dementia risk associated with menopausal hormone replacement,

“The findings show that menopausal hormone therapy, or MHT, is generally safe for women who require it,” Dr. Vinogradova said in an interview. “A small risk association was found for future development of Alzheimer’s disease increasing with the length of menopausal hormone treatment.” This finding applied only to combined treatments of estrogen plus progestin and became measurable only after long-term use of 5 years or more. “These risk associations, only for long-term use of MHT, are in line with findings related to breast cancer risk,” she said.

The findings also align with previous biological speculations that estrogen combined with progestin may have a harmful effect on the aging brain, she added, “but we also cannot completely rule out other possible factors from our study. For example, some women who were in fact suffering from early signs of Alzheimer’s disease similar to menopausal symptoms may have continued with their menopausal therapy for longer than other women.”

Concerns about the risk of dementia with MHT date back to 2003 when data from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study showed that incidence of all-cause dementia doubled in women age 65 years and older after treatment with conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate for an average of 4 years. More recently, Finnish research has yielded conflicting data about risks.

The study

The investigators used two U.K. primary care databases (QResearch and CPRD) to analyze MHT prescriptions for 118,501 women age 55 and older diagnosed with dementia between 1998 and 2020 and 497,416 female controls matched by age and general practice, but with no record of dementia.

The cohort was older: mean age of cases was 83.5 years and mean duration of treatment was 16 years for an average age of 67.7 at first captured prescription, considerably later than when most women begin MHT. Relevant factors such as family history, smoking, alcohol consumption, preexisting conditions, and other prescribed drugs were taken into account.

Overall, 16,291 (14%) dementia cases and 68,726 (14%) controls had been exposed to MHT in the period up to 3 years before diagnosis.

After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, the researchers found no overall associations between hormone therapy and risk of dementia, regardless of hormone type, application, dose, or duration of treatment. Within the subgroup of women younger than 80 years who had been taking estrogen-only therapy for 10 years or more, a slightly decreased risk of dementia emerged: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94.

However, an analysis of dementia cases with a diagnosis specifically of Alzheimer’s disease showed a slight increase in risk associated with estrogen-progestin therapy. Increased risks of developing specifically Alzheimer’s disease emerged in those who had used combination therapy for 5-9 years (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20) and also for 10 years or more (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33). This risk rose gradually with each year of exposure, reaching an average 11% increased risk for use from 5-9 years and an average 19% for use 10 years or more – equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman-years.

According to Jill M. Rabin, MD, a professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and an ob.gyn. with Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., the findings make sense for two reasons. “First, there are other health issues noted in women taking long-term combination hormonal therapy such as an increased risk of breast cancer,” she said in an interview. “Second, progesterone is recommended for women who have retained their uterus in order to counteract the potential effects of estrogen on the uterine lining causing possible overgrowth. There are systemic effects however of progesterone, as it counteracts estrogen, potentially decreasing its benefit on the neurological system.”

She added that this analysis is synchronous with other biological studies demonstrating possible neuroprotective effects of estrogen on the brain, especially among younger women. “The vascular system in the newly menopausal female is noted to have less endothelial and intimal thickening, better blood flow and oxygenation, and in general less vascular damage. Estrogen in these relatively younger, newly menopausal women may help to stabilize the vasculature as well as the neurologic system. On the other hand, estrogen therapy over the age of 80 may be delivered to a neurovasculature damaged with age and time, may be somewhat less beneficial.” Older women also have fewer estrogen receptors and, in general, other medical comorbidities.

According to the authors, the findings will be helpful to policy-makers, doctors, and patients when making choices about hormone therapy.

In an accompanying editorial, two U.S. researchers called the findings reassuring. Pauline M. Maki, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, however, pointed out that the current study with its older cohort and older age at MHT initiation could not address the important issue of the “timing hypothesis” – namely, that earlier initiation of hormone therapy might confer greater protection against Alzheimer’s disease, compared with later use.

And while the current observations do not change the recommendation that MHT should not be used to prevent dementia, they are helpful for providers to put dementia findings in context for patients. “The primary indication for hormone therapy continues to be the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and the current study should provide reassurance for women and their providers when treatment is prescribed for that reason,” they wrote.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research.

Coauthor Dr. Julia Hippisley-Cox is a director of QResearch, EMIS Health, which supplies the QResearch database used for this work, and is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk., which produces software to implement clinical risk algorithms.

Women who have taken hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms will be relieved by findings from a large British case-control study reporting no overall increased risk of dementia as long as exposure is not long term.

Publishing results online Sept. 29 in BMJ, ( Yana Vinogradova, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues made this observation after conducting nested case-control studies involving more than 700,000 women in two U.K. primary care databases. The investigators undertook the study to clarify disparate findings over the past 2 decades on dementia risk associated with menopausal hormone replacement,

“The findings show that menopausal hormone therapy, or MHT, is generally safe for women who require it,” Dr. Vinogradova said in an interview. “A small risk association was found for future development of Alzheimer’s disease increasing with the length of menopausal hormone treatment.” This finding applied only to combined treatments of estrogen plus progestin and became measurable only after long-term use of 5 years or more. “These risk associations, only for long-term use of MHT, are in line with findings related to breast cancer risk,” she said.

The findings also align with previous biological speculations that estrogen combined with progestin may have a harmful effect on the aging brain, she added, “but we also cannot completely rule out other possible factors from our study. For example, some women who were in fact suffering from early signs of Alzheimer’s disease similar to menopausal symptoms may have continued with their menopausal therapy for longer than other women.”

Concerns about the risk of dementia with MHT date back to 2003 when data from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study showed that incidence of all-cause dementia doubled in women age 65 years and older after treatment with conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate for an average of 4 years. More recently, Finnish research has yielded conflicting data about risks.

The study

The investigators used two U.K. primary care databases (QResearch and CPRD) to analyze MHT prescriptions for 118,501 women age 55 and older diagnosed with dementia between 1998 and 2020 and 497,416 female controls matched by age and general practice, but with no record of dementia.

The cohort was older: mean age of cases was 83.5 years and mean duration of treatment was 16 years for an average age of 67.7 at first captured prescription, considerably later than when most women begin MHT. Relevant factors such as family history, smoking, alcohol consumption, preexisting conditions, and other prescribed drugs were taken into account.

Overall, 16,291 (14%) dementia cases and 68,726 (14%) controls had been exposed to MHT in the period up to 3 years before diagnosis.

After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, the researchers found no overall associations between hormone therapy and risk of dementia, regardless of hormone type, application, dose, or duration of treatment. Within the subgroup of women younger than 80 years who had been taking estrogen-only therapy for 10 years or more, a slightly decreased risk of dementia emerged: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94.

However, an analysis of dementia cases with a diagnosis specifically of Alzheimer’s disease showed a slight increase in risk associated with estrogen-progestin therapy. Increased risks of developing specifically Alzheimer’s disease emerged in those who had used combination therapy for 5-9 years (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20) and also for 10 years or more (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33). This risk rose gradually with each year of exposure, reaching an average 11% increased risk for use from 5-9 years and an average 19% for use 10 years or more – equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman-years.

According to Jill M. Rabin, MD, a professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and an ob.gyn. with Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., the findings make sense for two reasons. “First, there are other health issues noted in women taking long-term combination hormonal therapy such as an increased risk of breast cancer,” she said in an interview. “Second, progesterone is recommended for women who have retained their uterus in order to counteract the potential effects of estrogen on the uterine lining causing possible overgrowth. There are systemic effects however of progesterone, as it counteracts estrogen, potentially decreasing its benefit on the neurological system.”

She added that this analysis is synchronous with other biological studies demonstrating possible neuroprotective effects of estrogen on the brain, especially among younger women. “The vascular system in the newly menopausal female is noted to have less endothelial and intimal thickening, better blood flow and oxygenation, and in general less vascular damage. Estrogen in these relatively younger, newly menopausal women may help to stabilize the vasculature as well as the neurologic system. On the other hand, estrogen therapy over the age of 80 may be delivered to a neurovasculature damaged with age and time, may be somewhat less beneficial.” Older women also have fewer estrogen receptors and, in general, other medical comorbidities.

According to the authors, the findings will be helpful to policy-makers, doctors, and patients when making choices about hormone therapy.

In an accompanying editorial, two U.S. researchers called the findings reassuring. Pauline M. Maki, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, however, pointed out that the current study with its older cohort and older age at MHT initiation could not address the important issue of the “timing hypothesis” – namely, that earlier initiation of hormone therapy might confer greater protection against Alzheimer’s disease, compared with later use.

And while the current observations do not change the recommendation that MHT should not be used to prevent dementia, they are helpful for providers to put dementia findings in context for patients. “The primary indication for hormone therapy continues to be the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and the current study should provide reassurance for women and their providers when treatment is prescribed for that reason,” they wrote.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research.

Coauthor Dr. Julia Hippisley-Cox is a director of QResearch, EMIS Health, which supplies the QResearch database used for this work, and is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk., which produces software to implement clinical risk algorithms.

Both high C-reactive protein (CRP) and older age predict mortality from COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, new research suggests.

The data, from the retrospective ACCREDIT cohort study, were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD 2021) by Daniel Kevin Llanera, MD.

The combination of older age and high levels of the inflammatory marker CRP were linked to a tripled risk for death by day 7 after hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with diabetes. But, in contrast to other studies, recent A1c and body mass index did not predict COVID-19 outcomes.

“Both of these variables are easily available upon admission to hospital,” Dr. Llanera, who now works at Imperial College, London, said in an EASD press release.

“This means we can easily identify patients early on in their hospital stay who will likely require more aggressive interventions to try and improve survival.”

“It makes sense that CRP and age are important,” said Simon Heller, MB BChir, DM, of the University of Sheffield, England. “It may be that diabetes alone overwhelmed the additional effects of obesity and A1c.

“Certainly in other studies, age was the overwhelming bad prognostic sign among people with diabetes, and perhaps long-term diabetes has effects on the immune system which we haven’t yet identified.”
 

Kidney disease in younger patients also linked to poorer outcomes

The study, conducted when Dr. Llanera worked for the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, involved 1,004 patients with diabetes admitted with COVID-19 to seven hospitals in northwest England from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2020. The patients were a mean age of 74.1 years, 60.7% were male, and 45% were in the most deprived quintile based on the U.K. government deprivation index. Overall, 56.2% had macrovascular complications and 49.6% had microvascular complications.

They had a median BMI of 27.6 kg/m², which is lower than that reported in previous studies and might explain the difference, Dr. Llanera noted.

The primary outcome, death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 24%. By day 30, 33% had died. These rates are higher than the rate found in previous studies, possibly because of greater socioeconomic deprivation and older age of the population, Dr. Llanera speculated.

A total of 7.5% of patients received intensive care by day 7 and 9.8% required intravenous insulin infusions.

On univariate analysis, insulin infusion was found to be protective, with those receiving it half as likely to die as those who didn’t need IV insulin (odds ratio [OR], 0.5).

In contrast, chronic kidney disease in people younger than 70 years increased the risk of death more than twofold (OR, 2.74), as did type 2 diabetes compared with other diabetes types (OR, 2.52).

As in previous studies, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers were not associated with COVID-19 outcomes, nor was the presence of diabetes-related complications.

In multivariate analysis, CRP and age emerged as the most significant predictors of the primary outcome, with those deemed high risk by a logistic regression model having an OR of 3.44 for death by day 7 compared with those at lower risk based on the two factors.

Data for glycemic control during the time of hospitalization weren’t available for this study, Dr. Llanera said in response to a question.

“We didn’t look into glycemic control during admission, just at entry, so I can’t answer whether strict glucose control is of benefit. I think it’s worth exploring further whether the use of IV insulin may be of benefit.”

Dr. Llanera also pointed out that people with diabetic kidney disease are in a chronic proinflammatory state and have immune dysregulation, thus potentially hindering their ability to “fight off” the virus.

“In addition, ACE2 receptors are upregulated in the kidneys of patients with diabetic kidney disease. These are molecules that facilitate entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cells. This may lead to direct attack of the kidneys by the virus, possibly leading to worse overall outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Llanera has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heller has reported serving as consultant or speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Mannkind, Zealand, MSD, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Both high C-reactive protein (CRP) and older age predict mortality from COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, new research suggests.

The data, from the retrospective ACCREDIT cohort study, were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD 2021) by Daniel Kevin Llanera, MD.

The combination of older age and high levels of the inflammatory marker CRP were linked to a tripled risk for death by day 7 after hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with diabetes. But, in contrast to other studies, recent A1c and body mass index did not predict COVID-19 outcomes.

“Both of these variables are easily available upon admission to hospital,” Dr. Llanera, who now works at Imperial College, London, said in an EASD press release.

“This means we can easily identify patients early on in their hospital stay who will likely require more aggressive interventions to try and improve survival.”

“It makes sense that CRP and age are important,” said Simon Heller, MB BChir, DM, of the University of Sheffield, England. “It may be that diabetes alone overwhelmed the additional effects of obesity and A1c.

“Certainly in other studies, age was the overwhelming bad prognostic sign among people with diabetes, and perhaps long-term diabetes has effects on the immune system which we haven’t yet identified.”
 

Kidney disease in younger patients also linked to poorer outcomes

The study, conducted when Dr. Llanera worked for the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, involved 1,004 patients with diabetes admitted with COVID-19 to seven hospitals in northwest England from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2020. The patients were a mean age of 74.1 years, 60.7% were male, and 45% were in the most deprived quintile based on the U.K. government deprivation index. Overall, 56.2% had macrovascular complications and 49.6% had microvascular complications.

They had a median BMI of 27.6 kg/m², which is lower than that reported in previous studies and might explain the difference, Dr. Llanera noted.

The primary outcome, death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 24%. By day 30, 33% had died. These rates are higher than the rate found in previous studies, possibly because of greater socioeconomic deprivation and older age of the population, Dr. Llanera speculated.

A total of 7.5% of patients received intensive care by day 7 and 9.8% required intravenous insulin infusions.

On univariate analysis, insulin infusion was found to be protective, with those receiving it half as likely to die as those who didn’t need IV insulin (odds ratio [OR], 0.5).

In contrast, chronic kidney disease in people younger than 70 years increased the risk of death more than twofold (OR, 2.74), as did type 2 diabetes compared with other diabetes types (OR, 2.52).

As in previous studies, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers were not associated with COVID-19 outcomes, nor was the presence of diabetes-related complications.

In multivariate analysis, CRP and age emerged as the most significant predictors of the primary outcome, with those deemed high risk by a logistic regression model having an OR of 3.44 for death by day 7 compared with those at lower risk based on the two factors.

Data for glycemic control during the time of hospitalization weren’t available for this study, Dr. Llanera said in response to a question.

“We didn’t look into glycemic control during admission, just at entry, so I can’t answer whether strict glucose control is of benefit. I think it’s worth exploring further whether the use of IV insulin may be of benefit.”

Dr. Llanera also pointed out that people with diabetic kidney disease are in a chronic proinflammatory state and have immune dysregulation, thus potentially hindering their ability to “fight off” the virus.

“In addition, ACE2 receptors are upregulated in the kidneys of patients with diabetic kidney disease. These are molecules that facilitate entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cells. This may lead to direct attack of the kidneys by the virus, possibly leading to worse overall outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Llanera has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heller has reported serving as consultant or speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Mannkind, Zealand, MSD, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Both high C-reactive protein (CRP) and older age predict mortality from COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, new research suggests.

The data, from the retrospective ACCREDIT cohort study, were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD 2021) by Daniel Kevin Llanera, MD.

The combination of older age and high levels of the inflammatory marker CRP were linked to a tripled risk for death by day 7 after hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with diabetes. But, in contrast to other studies, recent A1c and body mass index did not predict COVID-19 outcomes.

“Both of these variables are easily available upon admission to hospital,” Dr. Llanera, who now works at Imperial College, London, said in an EASD press release.

“This means we can easily identify patients early on in their hospital stay who will likely require more aggressive interventions to try and improve survival.”

“It makes sense that CRP and age are important,” said Simon Heller, MB BChir, DM, of the University of Sheffield, England. “It may be that diabetes alone overwhelmed the additional effects of obesity and A1c.

“Certainly in other studies, age was the overwhelming bad prognostic sign among people with diabetes, and perhaps long-term diabetes has effects on the immune system which we haven’t yet identified.”
 

Kidney disease in younger patients also linked to poorer outcomes

The study, conducted when Dr. Llanera worked for the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, involved 1,004 patients with diabetes admitted with COVID-19 to seven hospitals in northwest England from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2020. The patients were a mean age of 74.1 years, 60.7% were male, and 45% were in the most deprived quintile based on the U.K. government deprivation index. Overall, 56.2% had macrovascular complications and 49.6% had microvascular complications.

They had a median BMI of 27.6 kg/m², which is lower than that reported in previous studies and might explain the difference, Dr. Llanera noted.

The primary outcome, death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 24%. By day 30, 33% had died. These rates are higher than the rate found in previous studies, possibly because of greater socioeconomic deprivation and older age of the population, Dr. Llanera speculated.

A total of 7.5% of patients received intensive care by day 7 and 9.8% required intravenous insulin infusions.

On univariate analysis, insulin infusion was found to be protective, with those receiving it half as likely to die as those who didn’t need IV insulin (odds ratio [OR], 0.5).

In contrast, chronic kidney disease in people younger than 70 years increased the risk of death more than twofold (OR, 2.74), as did type 2 diabetes compared with other diabetes types (OR, 2.52).

As in previous studies, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers were not associated with COVID-19 outcomes, nor was the presence of diabetes-related complications.

In multivariate analysis, CRP and age emerged as the most significant predictors of the primary outcome, with those deemed high risk by a logistic regression model having an OR of 3.44 for death by day 7 compared with those at lower risk based on the two factors.

Data for glycemic control during the time of hospitalization weren’t available for this study, Dr. Llanera said in response to a question.

“We didn’t look into glycemic control during admission, just at entry, so I can’t answer whether strict glucose control is of benefit. I think it’s worth exploring further whether the use of IV insulin may be of benefit.”

Dr. Llanera also pointed out that people with diabetic kidney disease are in a chronic proinflammatory state and have immune dysregulation, thus potentially hindering their ability to “fight off” the virus.

“In addition, ACE2 receptors are upregulated in the kidneys of patients with diabetic kidney disease. These are molecules that facilitate entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cells. This may lead to direct attack of the kidneys by the virus, possibly leading to worse overall outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Llanera has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heller has reported serving as consultant or speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Mannkind, Zealand, MSD, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

When it comes to protecting diabetic hearts, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may have a slight edge over glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) according to the results of large, population-based, observational cohort study.

Around a 30% reduction in the risk for being hospitalized for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes who were treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor over a GLP-1 RA regardless of whether the patients had a preexisting heart condition.

The findings, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also showed a 10% lower risk for myocardial infarction or stroke among those treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor who had preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD), although there was no difference in risk between the two classes of drugs in those without preexisting CVD.

“These findings are important as they suggest that SGLT2 [inhibitors] and GLP-1 RA offer similar benefits in preventing myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with diabetes,” said study investigator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview.

They also show “that SGLT2 [inhibitors] offer greater efficacy in preventing heart failure, which supports the existing guidelines,” she added.

Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said these data were likely to be “additive to guidelines but not transformative.” The overall analysis results were “not surprising.” It was not unexpected that SGLT2 inhibitors provided a robust chronic heart failure (CHF) benefit, particularly in individuals with history of CVD, he said.

Dr. Jellinger, a clinical endocrinologist and professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami, observed, however, that “the similar CVD benefit in both drug classes in patients without known CVD adds to our knowledge in this somewhat controversial area and may be useful to the clinician in evaluating therapy in a diabetic individual without evidence of or at high risk for CHF.”

Furthermore, “the study also reminds us that, as demonstrated in published meta-analysis, there is also a modest CHF benefit associated with GLP-1 RA treatment particularly in patients with a history of CVD.”
 

Addressing the knowledge gap

Thanks to the results of many large-scale, prospective, cardiovascular outcomes studies, both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 RA have been recommended as treatment for people with diabetes who have established CVD. But with no direct head-to-head trials having been conducted, there is a gap in knowledge and there is currently little guidance for physicians on which drug class to choose for an individual patient.

To try to clarify things, Dr. Patorno and associates looked at data from more than 370,000 people with type 2 diabetes who had been treated between April 2013 and December 2017 with either a SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin) or GLP-1 RA (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, or liraglutide).

One-to-one propensity score matching was used to create the study groups: participants were first grouped according to their history of CVD, and then by the class of drug they had been prescribed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for MI, stroke, or heart failure.

Comparing the initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor with GLP-1 RA therapy, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI or stroke in patients with and without a history of CVD were a respective 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98) and 1.07 (0.97 to 1.18).

The corresponding hazard ratios for heart failure hospitalizations were 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) and 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85).
 

Real-world studies are of ‘increasing value’

“As in other not-randomized studies based on real-world data, residual confounding cannot be completely ruled out,” Dr. Patorno acknowledged. She added, however that “state-of-the-art methodological strategies were implemented to minimize this possibility.”

Limitations notwithstanding, “real world studies are demonstrating increasing value,” observed Dr. Jellinger. Further large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials that directly compare these two drug classes “are unlikely given the depth of information available now,” Dr. Jellinger suggested.

“This head-to-head retrospective study may be as close as we get and does represent the first effort at a comparison of these two classes.”

Dr. Patorno said of the potential clinical implications: “Because the two classes are equally effective for stroke and myocardial infarction, but the SGLT2 inhibitors are superior for heart failure, when considered in aggregate, SGLT2 inhibitors are likely to prevent more of these adverse cardiovascular events than GLP-1 RA.”

The study received no commercial funding and was supported by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.

Dr. Patorno reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Jellinger is on the speaker’s bureau for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, and Esperion, and has served on advisory boards for Corcept and Regeneron.

When it comes to protecting diabetic hearts, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may have a slight edge over glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) according to the results of large, population-based, observational cohort study.

Around a 30% reduction in the risk for being hospitalized for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes who were treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor over a GLP-1 RA regardless of whether the patients had a preexisting heart condition.

The findings, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also showed a 10% lower risk for myocardial infarction or stroke among those treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor who had preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD), although there was no difference in risk between the two classes of drugs in those without preexisting CVD.

“These findings are important as they suggest that SGLT2 [inhibitors] and GLP-1 RA offer similar benefits in preventing myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with diabetes,” said study investigator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview.

They also show “that SGLT2 [inhibitors] offer greater efficacy in preventing heart failure, which supports the existing guidelines,” she added.

Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said these data were likely to be “additive to guidelines but not transformative.” The overall analysis results were “not surprising.” It was not unexpected that SGLT2 inhibitors provided a robust chronic heart failure (CHF) benefit, particularly in individuals with history of CVD, he said.

Dr. Jellinger, a clinical endocrinologist and professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami, observed, however, that “the similar CVD benefit in both drug classes in patients without known CVD adds to our knowledge in this somewhat controversial area and may be useful to the clinician in evaluating therapy in a diabetic individual without evidence of or at high risk for CHF.”

Furthermore, “the study also reminds us that, as demonstrated in published meta-analysis, there is also a modest CHF benefit associated with GLP-1 RA treatment particularly in patients with a history of CVD.”
 

Addressing the knowledge gap

Thanks to the results of many large-scale, prospective, cardiovascular outcomes studies, both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 RA have been recommended as treatment for people with diabetes who have established CVD. But with no direct head-to-head trials having been conducted, there is a gap in knowledge and there is currently little guidance for physicians on which drug class to choose for an individual patient.

To try to clarify things, Dr. Patorno and associates looked at data from more than 370,000 people with type 2 diabetes who had been treated between April 2013 and December 2017 with either a SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin) or GLP-1 RA (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, or liraglutide).

One-to-one propensity score matching was used to create the study groups: participants were first grouped according to their history of CVD, and then by the class of drug they had been prescribed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for MI, stroke, or heart failure.

Comparing the initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor with GLP-1 RA therapy, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI or stroke in patients with and without a history of CVD were a respective 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98) and 1.07 (0.97 to 1.18).

The corresponding hazard ratios for heart failure hospitalizations were 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) and 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85).
 

Real-world studies are of ‘increasing value’

“As in other not-randomized studies based on real-world data, residual confounding cannot be completely ruled out,” Dr. Patorno acknowledged. She added, however that “state-of-the-art methodological strategies were implemented to minimize this possibility.”

Limitations notwithstanding, “real world studies are demonstrating increasing value,” observed Dr. Jellinger. Further large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials that directly compare these two drug classes “are unlikely given the depth of information available now,” Dr. Jellinger suggested.

“This head-to-head retrospective study may be as close as we get and does represent the first effort at a comparison of these two classes.”

Dr. Patorno said of the potential clinical implications: “Because the two classes are equally effective for stroke and myocardial infarction, but the SGLT2 inhibitors are superior for heart failure, when considered in aggregate, SGLT2 inhibitors are likely to prevent more of these adverse cardiovascular events than GLP-1 RA.”

The study received no commercial funding and was supported by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.

Dr. Patorno reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Jellinger is on the speaker’s bureau for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, and Esperion, and has served on advisory boards for Corcept and Regeneron.

When it comes to protecting diabetic hearts, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may have a slight edge over glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) according to the results of large, population-based, observational cohort study.

Around a 30% reduction in the risk for being hospitalized for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes who were treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor over a GLP-1 RA regardless of whether the patients had a preexisting heart condition.

The findings, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also showed a 10% lower risk for myocardial infarction or stroke among those treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor who had preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD), although there was no difference in risk between the two classes of drugs in those without preexisting CVD.

“These findings are important as they suggest that SGLT2 [inhibitors] and GLP-1 RA offer similar benefits in preventing myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with diabetes,” said study investigator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview.

They also show “that SGLT2 [inhibitors] offer greater efficacy in preventing heart failure, which supports the existing guidelines,” she added.

Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said these data were likely to be “additive to guidelines but not transformative.” The overall analysis results were “not surprising.” It was not unexpected that SGLT2 inhibitors provided a robust chronic heart failure (CHF) benefit, particularly in individuals with history of CVD, he said.

Dr. Jellinger, a clinical endocrinologist and professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami, observed, however, that “the similar CVD benefit in both drug classes in patients without known CVD adds to our knowledge in this somewhat controversial area and may be useful to the clinician in evaluating therapy in a diabetic individual without evidence of or at high risk for CHF.”

Furthermore, “the study also reminds us that, as demonstrated in published meta-analysis, there is also a modest CHF benefit associated with GLP-1 RA treatment particularly in patients with a history of CVD.”
 

Addressing the knowledge gap

Thanks to the results of many large-scale, prospective, cardiovascular outcomes studies, both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 RA have been recommended as treatment for people with diabetes who have established CVD. But with no direct head-to-head trials having been conducted, there is a gap in knowledge and there is currently little guidance for physicians on which drug class to choose for an individual patient.

To try to clarify things, Dr. Patorno and associates looked at data from more than 370,000 people with type 2 diabetes who had been treated between April 2013 and December 2017 with either a SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin) or GLP-1 RA (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, or liraglutide).

One-to-one propensity score matching was used to create the study groups: participants were first grouped according to their history of CVD, and then by the class of drug they had been prescribed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for MI, stroke, or heart failure.

Comparing the initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor with GLP-1 RA therapy, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI or stroke in patients with and without a history of CVD were a respective 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98) and 1.07 (0.97 to 1.18).

The corresponding hazard ratios for heart failure hospitalizations were 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) and 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85).
 

Real-world studies are of ‘increasing value’

“As in other not-randomized studies based on real-world data, residual confounding cannot be completely ruled out,” Dr. Patorno acknowledged. She added, however that “state-of-the-art methodological strategies were implemented to minimize this possibility.”

Limitations notwithstanding, “real world studies are demonstrating increasing value,” observed Dr. Jellinger. Further large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials that directly compare these two drug classes “are unlikely given the depth of information available now,” Dr. Jellinger suggested.

“This head-to-head retrospective study may be as close as we get and does represent the first effort at a comparison of these two classes.”

Dr. Patorno said of the potential clinical implications: “Because the two classes are equally effective for stroke and myocardial infarction, but the SGLT2 inhibitors are superior for heart failure, when considered in aggregate, SGLT2 inhibitors are likely to prevent more of these adverse cardiovascular events than GLP-1 RA.”

The study received no commercial funding and was supported by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.

Dr. Patorno reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Jellinger is on the speaker’s bureau for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, and Esperion, and has served on advisory boards for Corcept and Regeneron.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at [email protected].

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at [email protected].

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at [email protected].

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

[email protected]

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

[email protected]

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

[email protected]

Patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery commonly experienced remission, but there was little increase in rates of remission above a threshold of 20% total weight loss (TWL), according to a retrospective analysis of 5,928 patients with diabetes in an integrated health care system in Southern California.

The findings should reassure physicians and patients that surgery will be beneficial, according to lead author Karen Coleman, PhD, professor of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

Dr. Coleman has heard from many physicians saying they recommend against bariatric surgery because of concerns that patients gain weight back and therefore won’t get a long-term benefit, but this is not supported by the literature. “Hundreds of articles at this point show that this simply is not true. In addition, providers seem to think about bariatric surgery as an ‘all or none’ treatment. Gaining any weight back means that patients ‘fail.’ Weight regain is a normal part of massive weight loss; however, maintaining a certain amount of weight loss still provides benefits for patients, especially those with cardiovascular conditions like diabetes,” said Dr. Coleman.

Most patients lose 20%-30% of their body weight after bariatric surgery, but they don’t have to lose that much to see an improvement in type 2 diabetes (T2D). In addition, if patients lose that much or more, and then gain some weight back, it doesn’t eliminate benefit. “Although we did not measure weight regain, a corollary statement is that patients can regain some of the weight they lose, but if they stay around 20% of their total weight lost, then their diabetes still remits,” said Dr. Coleman.

In the past, some standards to treat severe weight loss and metabolic disease called for 50% or more TWL. More recent standards target a 30% threshold. “We want physicians to understand that they need to have more reasonable expectations of weight loss with surgery and that these reasonable expectations still result in profound improvements in cardiovascular risk, death, and quality of life. A 20% TWL threshold is easier for these patients to get to, and like other patients, they still get the benefit. So even if these patients may not have as much weight loss they can still benefit from the surgery for their diabetes,” Dr. Coleman added.

Physicians have long assumed that the effect of bariatric surgery on T2D remission is tied to weight loss, but this has been tested only recently. Previous studies found a link and suggested that 25% TWL may be the needed threshold, but more data are needed, especially for sleeve gastrectomy.

In the current study, published in Diabetes Care, 73% of patients were female. Mean age was 49.8 years, and mean body mass index was 43.8 kg/m². Fifty-seven percent underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Follow-up averaged 5.9 years. Overall, 71% of patients had an initial remission of their diabetes (72% RYGB, 70% sleeve). The average time to remission was 1.0 years. The researchers categorized participants by percentage TWL. Compared with the 0%-5% group, each 5% increase in TWL was linked with a greater likelihood of achieving remission: 5%-10%, hazard ratio 1.22 (P = .23); 10%-15%, HR 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.47-2.64); 15%-20%, HR 2.33 (95% CI, 1.74-3.11); 20%-25%, HR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.11-3.75); 25%-30%, HR 2.88 (95% CI, 2.16-3.83); >30%, HR, 2.92 (95% CI, 2.19-3.88). Categories above 25% TWL had remission rates similar to those of the 20%-25% group. Those in the over 20% TWL group who were taking insulin at the time of surgery had better odds of T2D remission than did those in the 0%-5% TWL group who were not taking insulin (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.64-2.88).

The study is a useful addition to the literature on the topic, according to W. Timothy Garvey, MD, director of the diabetes research center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “This tends to quantify it a little bit more than people might have had before,” he said.

MDedge News

Dr. Garvey noted that there were wide error bars in the outcomes grouped by TWL, and suggested that individual results of surgery may vary widely. “There are plenty of individuals in each of those bins that will require more weight loss for remission or less weight loss. That’s just the average of people in that weight loss category. So if a clinician is going to use this information, they need to take it with a grain of salt and realize that, just because they reach that 20% weight loss threshold, it doesn’t mean that their patient is going to go into remission. As a loose guide, as something to shoot for, I think this is valuable,” he added.

Dr. Coleman recommended that physicians not wait too long to suggest bariatric surgery, since patients are likely to have better outcomes if they are healthier going in. “Bariatric surgery is by far the most effective long-term treatment we have for severe obesity and we should be treating it as a secondary prevention strategy, not a last resort to save people’s lives. Bariatric surgery cannot regrow the cells in the pancreas that make insulin. So if we wait until patients with type 2 diabetes are insulin dependent to offer bariatric surgery, we are compromising the great effect surgery can have for them,” said Dr. Coleman.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery commonly experienced remission, but there was little increase in rates of remission above a threshold of 20% total weight loss (TWL), according to a retrospective analysis of 5,928 patients with diabetes in an integrated health care system in Southern California.

The findings should reassure physicians and patients that surgery will be beneficial, according to lead author Karen Coleman, PhD, professor of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

Dr. Coleman has heard from many physicians saying they recommend against bariatric surgery because of concerns that patients gain weight back and therefore won’t get a long-term benefit, but this is not supported by the literature. “Hundreds of articles at this point show that this simply is not true. In addition, providers seem to think about bariatric surgery as an ‘all or none’ treatment. Gaining any weight back means that patients ‘fail.’ Weight regain is a normal part of massive weight loss; however, maintaining a certain amount of weight loss still provides benefits for patients, especially those with cardiovascular conditions like diabetes,” said Dr. Coleman.

Most patients lose 20%-30% of their body weight after bariatric surgery, but they don’t have to lose that much to see an improvement in type 2 diabetes (T2D). In addition, if patients lose that much or more, and then gain some weight back, it doesn’t eliminate benefit. “Although we did not measure weight regain, a corollary statement is that patients can regain some of the weight they lose, but if they stay around 20% of their total weight lost, then their diabetes still remits,” said Dr. Coleman.

In the past, some standards to treat severe weight loss and metabolic disease called for 50% or more TWL. More recent standards target a 30% threshold. “We want physicians to understand that they need to have more reasonable expectations of weight loss with surgery and that these reasonable expectations still result in profound improvements in cardiovascular risk, death, and quality of life. A 20% TWL threshold is easier for these patients to get to, and like other patients, they still get the benefit. So even if these patients may not have as much weight loss they can still benefit from the surgery for their diabetes,” Dr. Coleman added.

Physicians have long assumed that the effect of bariatric surgery on T2D remission is tied to weight loss, but this has been tested only recently. Previous studies found a link and suggested that 25% TWL may be the needed threshold, but more data are needed, especially for sleeve gastrectomy.

In the current study, published in Diabetes Care, 73% of patients were female. Mean age was 49.8 years, and mean body mass index was 43.8 kg/m². Fifty-seven percent underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Follow-up averaged 5.9 years. Overall, 71% of patients had an initial remission of their diabetes (72% RYGB, 70% sleeve). The average time to remission was 1.0 years. The researchers categorized participants by percentage TWL. Compared with the 0%-5% group, each 5% increase in TWL was linked with a greater likelihood of achieving remission: 5%-10%, hazard ratio 1.22 (P = .23); 10%-15%, HR 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.47-2.64); 15%-20%, HR 2.33 (95% CI, 1.74-3.11); 20%-25%, HR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.11-3.75); 25%-30%, HR 2.88 (95% CI, 2.16-3.83); >30%, HR, 2.92 (95% CI, 2.19-3.88). Categories above 25% TWL had remission rates similar to those of the 20%-25% group. Those in the over 20% TWL group who were taking insulin at the time of surgery had better odds of T2D remission than did those in the 0%-5% TWL group who were not taking insulin (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.64-2.88).

The study is a useful addition to the literature on the topic, according to W. Timothy Garvey, MD, director of the diabetes research center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “This tends to quantify it a little bit more than people might have had before,” he said.

MDedge News

Dr. Garvey noted that there were wide error bars in the outcomes grouped by TWL, and suggested that individual results of surgery may vary widely. “There are plenty of individuals in each of those bins that will require more weight loss for remission or less weight loss. That’s just the average of people in that weight loss category. So if a clinician is going to use this information, they need to take it with a grain of salt and realize that, just because they reach that 20% weight loss threshold, it doesn’t mean that their patient is going to go into remission. As a loose guide, as something to shoot for, I think this is valuable,” he added.

Dr. Coleman recommended that physicians not wait too long to suggest bariatric surgery, since patients are likely to have better outcomes if they are healthier going in. “Bariatric surgery is by far the most effective long-term treatment we have for severe obesity and we should be treating it as a secondary prevention strategy, not a last resort to save people’s lives. Bariatric surgery cannot regrow the cells in the pancreas that make insulin. So if we wait until patients with type 2 diabetes are insulin dependent to offer bariatric surgery, we are compromising the great effect surgery can have for them,” said Dr. Coleman.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery commonly experienced remission, but there was little increase in rates of remission above a threshold of 20% total weight loss (TWL), according to a retrospective analysis of 5,928 patients with diabetes in an integrated health care system in Southern California.

The findings should reassure physicians and patients that surgery will be beneficial, according to lead author Karen Coleman, PhD, professor of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

Dr. Coleman has heard from many physicians saying they recommend against bariatric surgery because of concerns that patients gain weight back and therefore won’t get a long-term benefit, but this is not supported by the literature. “Hundreds of articles at this point show that this simply is not true. In addition, providers seem to think about bariatric surgery as an ‘all or none’ treatment. Gaining any weight back means that patients ‘fail.’ Weight regain is a normal part of massive weight loss; however, maintaining a certain amount of weight loss still provides benefits for patients, especially those with cardiovascular conditions like diabetes,” said Dr. Coleman.

Most patients lose 20%-30% of their body weight after bariatric surgery, but they don’t have to lose that much to see an improvement in type 2 diabetes (T2D). In addition, if patients lose that much or more, and then gain some weight back, it doesn’t eliminate benefit. “Although we did not measure weight regain, a corollary statement is that patients can regain some of the weight they lose, but if they stay around 20% of their total weight lost, then their diabetes still remits,” said Dr. Coleman.

In the past, some standards to treat severe weight loss and metabolic disease called for 50% or more TWL. More recent standards target a 30% threshold. “We want physicians to understand that they need to have more reasonable expectations of weight loss with surgery and that these reasonable expectations still result in profound improvements in cardiovascular risk, death, and quality of life. A 20% TWL threshold is easier for these patients to get to, and like other patients, they still get the benefit. So even if these patients may not have as much weight loss they can still benefit from the surgery for their diabetes,” Dr. Coleman added.

Physicians have long assumed that the effect of bariatric surgery on T2D remission is tied to weight loss, but this has been tested only recently. Previous studies found a link and suggested that 25% TWL may be the needed threshold, but more data are needed, especially for sleeve gastrectomy.

In the current study, published in Diabetes Care, 73% of patients were female. Mean age was 49.8 years, and mean body mass index was 43.8 kg/m². Fifty-seven percent underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Follow-up averaged 5.9 years. Overall, 71% of patients had an initial remission of their diabetes (72% RYGB, 70% sleeve). The average time to remission was 1.0 years. The researchers categorized participants by percentage TWL. Compared with the 0%-5% group, each 5% increase in TWL was linked with a greater likelihood of achieving remission: 5%-10%, hazard ratio 1.22 (P = .23); 10%-15%, HR 1.97 (95% confidence interval, 1.47-2.64); 15%-20%, HR 2.33 (95% CI, 1.74-3.11); 20%-25%, HR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.11-3.75); 25%-30%, HR 2.88 (95% CI, 2.16-3.83); >30%, HR, 2.92 (95% CI, 2.19-3.88). Categories above 25% TWL had remission rates similar to those of the 20%-25% group. Those in the over 20% TWL group who were taking insulin at the time of surgery had better odds of T2D remission than did those in the 0%-5% TWL group who were not taking insulin (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.64-2.88).

The study is a useful addition to the literature on the topic, according to W. Timothy Garvey, MD, director of the diabetes research center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “This tends to quantify it a little bit more than people might have had before,” he said.

MDedge News

Dr. Garvey noted that there were wide error bars in the outcomes grouped by TWL, and suggested that individual results of surgery may vary widely. “There are plenty of individuals in each of those bins that will require more weight loss for remission or less weight loss. That’s just the average of people in that weight loss category. So if a clinician is going to use this information, they need to take it with a grain of salt and realize that, just because they reach that 20% weight loss threshold, it doesn’t mean that their patient is going to go into remission. As a loose guide, as something to shoot for, I think this is valuable,” he added.

Dr. Coleman recommended that physicians not wait too long to suggest bariatric surgery, since patients are likely to have better outcomes if they are healthier going in. “Bariatric surgery is by far the most effective long-term treatment we have for severe obesity and we should be treating it as a secondary prevention strategy, not a last resort to save people’s lives. Bariatric surgery cannot regrow the cells in the pancreas that make insulin. So if we wait until patients with type 2 diabetes are insulin dependent to offer bariatric surgery, we are compromising the great effect surgery can have for them,” said Dr. Coleman.