Endocrinology

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Osteoporosis treatment with abaloparatide in postmenopausal women does not lead to increased cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials.

iStock/Thinkstock

“Neither treatment with abaloparatide or teriparatide was associated with an increase in serious cardiac [adverse events],” wrote Felicia Cosman, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.

To assess the cardiovascular safety profile of abaloparatide, a synthetic analogue of parathyroid hormone–related peptide, the researchers analyzed data on heart rate, blood pressure and cardiovascular-related adverse events (AEs) from patients taking part in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial and its ACTIVExtend extension study.

The 2,460 participants in the ACTIVE trial were postmenopausal women between the ages of 49 and 86 years with osteoporosis; they were given 80 mcg of daily subcutaneous abaloparatide, 20 mcg of open-label daily subcutaneous teriparatide, or placebo in roughly equal numbers for 18 months. After a 1-month treatment-free period, 1,133 eligible participants from either the abaloparatide or placebo groups were enrolled in ACTIVExtend and given 70 mg of open-label alendronate once a week for 24 months. Because heart rate was only assessed pre- and post dose in the ACTIVE trial, an additional pharmacology study of abaloparatide involving 55 healthy volunteers (32 men and 23 women) was undertaken. After a dose of either abaloparatide or placebo, heart rate was measured at 15, 30, and 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours.

Overall, treatment-emergent AEs were higher in the abaloparatide (165, 20.1%) and teriparatide (106, 13%) groups, compared with placebo (74, 9%), as were AEs that led to discontinuation of the study and were potentially associated with changes in heart rate or BP (27 in abaloparatide, 11 in teriparatide, and 5 in placebo). However, the percentage of patients with serious cardiac AEs was similar across groups (1%, 1%, and 0.9%, respectively).

During the ACTIVE trial, major cardiac adverse events plus heart failure were more common in the placebo group (1.7%) than the abaloparatide (0.5%) or teriparatide (0.6%) groups. During ACTIVExtend, major cardiac adverse plus heart failure were similarly common in the abaloparatide/alendronate (1.6%) and the placebo/alendronate (1.6%) groups.

On day 1 of treatment during ACTIVE, the mean change in heart rate from pretreatment to an hour post treatment was 7.9 bpm, 5.3 bpm, and 1.2 bpm for abaloparatide, teriparatide, and placebo, respectively (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .05 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide).

Subsequent visits saw similar changes. The mean maximum heart rate at 1 hour post dose was 80.7 bpm for abaloparatide, 79.0 bpm for teriparatide, and 73.7 bpm for placebo (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .01 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide). In the study of healthy volunteers, HR peaked at 15 minutes after dosing and then declined, resolving within 2.5-4 hours.

From predose to 1 hour post dose, small but significant decreases were observed in mean supine systolic and diastolic BP across groups (–2.7/–3.6 mm Hg with abaloparatide, –2.0/–3.6 with teriparatide, –1.5/–2.3 with placebo). During the first year of ACTIVE, the mean maximal decrease in BP from predose to 1 hour post dose was slightly higher (1-2 mm Hg) in the abaloparatide and teriparatide groups, compared with the placebo group (P < .05).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the analysis of major cardiac adverse plus heart failure in ACTIVE being limited because of a low number of events and the trial not being designed in that regard.

Abaloparatide was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 on the basis of results from the ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials showing significant reductions in new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, compared with placebo.

The analysis was partially funded by Radius Health. Its authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa450.

Osteoporosis treatment with abaloparatide in postmenopausal women does not lead to increased cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials.

iStock/Thinkstock

“Neither treatment with abaloparatide or teriparatide was associated with an increase in serious cardiac [adverse events],” wrote Felicia Cosman, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.

To assess the cardiovascular safety profile of abaloparatide, a synthetic analogue of parathyroid hormone–related peptide, the researchers analyzed data on heart rate, blood pressure and cardiovascular-related adverse events (AEs) from patients taking part in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial and its ACTIVExtend extension study.

The 2,460 participants in the ACTIVE trial were postmenopausal women between the ages of 49 and 86 years with osteoporosis; they were given 80 mcg of daily subcutaneous abaloparatide, 20 mcg of open-label daily subcutaneous teriparatide, or placebo in roughly equal numbers for 18 months. After a 1-month treatment-free period, 1,133 eligible participants from either the abaloparatide or placebo groups were enrolled in ACTIVExtend and given 70 mg of open-label alendronate once a week for 24 months. Because heart rate was only assessed pre- and post dose in the ACTIVE trial, an additional pharmacology study of abaloparatide involving 55 healthy volunteers (32 men and 23 women) was undertaken. After a dose of either abaloparatide or placebo, heart rate was measured at 15, 30, and 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours.

Overall, treatment-emergent AEs were higher in the abaloparatide (165, 20.1%) and teriparatide (106, 13%) groups, compared with placebo (74, 9%), as were AEs that led to discontinuation of the study and were potentially associated with changes in heart rate or BP (27 in abaloparatide, 11 in teriparatide, and 5 in placebo). However, the percentage of patients with serious cardiac AEs was similar across groups (1%, 1%, and 0.9%, respectively).

During the ACTIVE trial, major cardiac adverse events plus heart failure were more common in the placebo group (1.7%) than the abaloparatide (0.5%) or teriparatide (0.6%) groups. During ACTIVExtend, major cardiac adverse plus heart failure were similarly common in the abaloparatide/alendronate (1.6%) and the placebo/alendronate (1.6%) groups.

On day 1 of treatment during ACTIVE, the mean change in heart rate from pretreatment to an hour post treatment was 7.9 bpm, 5.3 bpm, and 1.2 bpm for abaloparatide, teriparatide, and placebo, respectively (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .05 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide).

Subsequent visits saw similar changes. The mean maximum heart rate at 1 hour post dose was 80.7 bpm for abaloparatide, 79.0 bpm for teriparatide, and 73.7 bpm for placebo (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .01 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide). In the study of healthy volunteers, HR peaked at 15 minutes after dosing and then declined, resolving within 2.5-4 hours.

From predose to 1 hour post dose, small but significant decreases were observed in mean supine systolic and diastolic BP across groups (–2.7/–3.6 mm Hg with abaloparatide, –2.0/–3.6 with teriparatide, –1.5/–2.3 with placebo). During the first year of ACTIVE, the mean maximal decrease in BP from predose to 1 hour post dose was slightly higher (1-2 mm Hg) in the abaloparatide and teriparatide groups, compared with the placebo group (P < .05).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the analysis of major cardiac adverse plus heart failure in ACTIVE being limited because of a low number of events and the trial not being designed in that regard.

Abaloparatide was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 on the basis of results from the ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials showing significant reductions in new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, compared with placebo.

The analysis was partially funded by Radius Health. Its authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa450.

Osteoporosis treatment with abaloparatide in postmenopausal women does not lead to increased cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials.

iStock/Thinkstock

“Neither treatment with abaloparatide or teriparatide was associated with an increase in serious cardiac [adverse events],” wrote Felicia Cosman, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.

To assess the cardiovascular safety profile of abaloparatide, a synthetic analogue of parathyroid hormone–related peptide, the researchers analyzed data on heart rate, blood pressure and cardiovascular-related adverse events (AEs) from patients taking part in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial and its ACTIVExtend extension study.

The 2,460 participants in the ACTIVE trial were postmenopausal women between the ages of 49 and 86 years with osteoporosis; they were given 80 mcg of daily subcutaneous abaloparatide, 20 mcg of open-label daily subcutaneous teriparatide, or placebo in roughly equal numbers for 18 months. After a 1-month treatment-free period, 1,133 eligible participants from either the abaloparatide or placebo groups were enrolled in ACTIVExtend and given 70 mg of open-label alendronate once a week for 24 months. Because heart rate was only assessed pre- and post dose in the ACTIVE trial, an additional pharmacology study of abaloparatide involving 55 healthy volunteers (32 men and 23 women) was undertaken. After a dose of either abaloparatide or placebo, heart rate was measured at 15, 30, and 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours.

Overall, treatment-emergent AEs were higher in the abaloparatide (165, 20.1%) and teriparatide (106, 13%) groups, compared with placebo (74, 9%), as were AEs that led to discontinuation of the study and were potentially associated with changes in heart rate or BP (27 in abaloparatide, 11 in teriparatide, and 5 in placebo). However, the percentage of patients with serious cardiac AEs was similar across groups (1%, 1%, and 0.9%, respectively).

During the ACTIVE trial, major cardiac adverse events plus heart failure were more common in the placebo group (1.7%) than the abaloparatide (0.5%) or teriparatide (0.6%) groups. During ACTIVExtend, major cardiac adverse plus heart failure were similarly common in the abaloparatide/alendronate (1.6%) and the placebo/alendronate (1.6%) groups.

On day 1 of treatment during ACTIVE, the mean change in heart rate from pretreatment to an hour post treatment was 7.9 bpm, 5.3 bpm, and 1.2 bpm for abaloparatide, teriparatide, and placebo, respectively (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .05 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide).

Subsequent visits saw similar changes. The mean maximum heart rate at 1 hour post dose was 80.7 bpm for abaloparatide, 79.0 bpm for teriparatide, and 73.7 bpm for placebo (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .01 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide). In the study of healthy volunteers, HR peaked at 15 minutes after dosing and then declined, resolving within 2.5-4 hours.

From predose to 1 hour post dose, small but significant decreases were observed in mean supine systolic and diastolic BP across groups (–2.7/–3.6 mm Hg with abaloparatide, –2.0/–3.6 with teriparatide, –1.5/–2.3 with placebo). During the first year of ACTIVE, the mean maximal decrease in BP from predose to 1 hour post dose was slightly higher (1-2 mm Hg) in the abaloparatide and teriparatide groups, compared with the placebo group (P < .05).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the analysis of major cardiac adverse plus heart failure in ACTIVE being limited because of a low number of events and the trial not being designed in that regard.

Abaloparatide was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 on the basis of results from the ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials showing significant reductions in new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, compared with placebo.

The analysis was partially funded by Radius Health. Its authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa450.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

The use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapies should be limited to patients who are not able to use a hormone therapy product approved by the Food and Drug Administration for reasons of allergy or dosage, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

In recent years, compounded bioidentical hormone therapies (cBHTs) have been “marketed as a personalized and natural approach to enhanced wellness using tailored preparations that address a myriad of symptoms, including those associated with menopause and aging,” wrote Donald R. Mattison, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and chair of the committee charged with producing the report, and colleagues.

Although both cBHTs and bioidentical hormone therapies (BHTs) contain hormones that are structurally and chemically identical to those in the human body, cBHTs have not undergone the safety, efficacy, and quality control tests of approved FDA products, according to the report.

In addition, cBHTs have no standardization when it comes to medication doses, and the products often are available in topicals such as creams or ointments, as well as pills or pellets. The lack of standards in dosing or form can contribute to the risk of overdose, the report emphasized.

Various cBTH products continue to be marketed to the public for age-related hormone symptoms including hot flashes associated with menopause and decreased muscle mass associated with decreased testosterone. However, cBHTs are not approved by the FDA in part because the individually mixed products are not tested to verify the amount of hormone that may be absorbed.

In response to the increased use of cBHTs, the National Academies convened a Committee on the Clinical Utility of Treating Patients with Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and commissioned a report.

The two typical reasons to prescribe cBHT are either to provide a medication in an alternate dose not available in approved products or to omit components of a medication to which a patient is allergic, according to the report.

The report includes an algorithm to help guide clinicians in prescribing FDA-approved products, including off-label use of approved products, before cBHT products. “There is a dearth of high-quality evidence ... available to establish whether cBHT preparations are safe or efficacious for their prescribed uses,” the report states.

Of note, the committee also found no guidelines to recommend the use of cBHT products as a substitute for off-label use of FDA-approved BHT products for patients with female sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria, two conditions for which no FDA-approved BHT products exist.

“The North American Menopause Society applauds the efforts of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and endorses their recommendations on compounded bioidentical hormone therapy,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of The North American Menopause Society, wrote in a statement. “As a society, we remain committed to improving the care of midlife women through the promotion of evidence-based research, education, and clinical care.”

A report on the use of cBHTs was important at this time because of the widespread and largely unregulated use of these products with little data to support their safety and efficacy, Dr. Faubion said in an interview.

“There are no indications for use of custom compounded hormone therapy aside from an allergy to a component in the FDA-approved products or lack of availability of the needed dose, which would be exceedingly rare given the variety of forms and doses available with FDA-approved products,” she said.

Main concerns regarding the use of cBHTs are the lack of safety and efficacy data, Dr. Faubion emphasized. “Women believe these products are safer than FDA-approved products because they do not receive a package insert outlining potential risks as they do with FDA-approved products.” A lack of data and safety monitoring of cBHTs means that adverse effects are not monitored and reported, she said. Also, safety concerns persist regarding some forms of cBHTs such as pellets, which were specifically highlighted in the report.

Dr. Faubion said that she “absolutely” agrees with the report’s limited circumstances in which the used of cBHTs would be appropriate. “There are very few reasons why women would need to use compounded hormones instead of the FDA-approved versions, which are regulated for quality, efficacy and safety, readily available in the local pharmacy, and often covered by insurance.”

In terms of the future, “we need more education for women as consumers and for medical providers on this topic,” Dr. Faubion noted. Also, “clearly, there is a dearth of research on the true efficacy and safety of these compounded hormone therapy products.”

The statement from the National Academies crystallizes what experts have been saying for decades, according to Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The formal recommendations to limit the use of cBHTs “are not novel, but certainly needed,” and the statement “offers guidance regardless of your specialty,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

There is often a disconnect between consumers’ understanding of compounding and the reality of safety concerns, she said. “We are in a tabloid era,” and education is key to guiding patients toward the FDA-approved treatments with safety data and demonstrated effectiveness, she said. “Safety should be the driving factor.” In compounded products, “there is no consistency that what you get today is the same as what you get tomorrow,” and the lack of standardization of cBHTs increases the risk for adverse events, she emphasized.

For patients with special needs such as allergies or other specialized dosing requirements, as noted in the National Academies statement, clinicians should discuss the options with patients and monitor them regularly to head off potential adverse events such as the development of uterine cancer, said Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The research involved in creating the report was supported by the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mattison DR et al.; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The clinical utility of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: A review of safety, effectiveness, and use. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2020.)

The use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapies should be limited to patients who are not able to use a hormone therapy product approved by the Food and Drug Administration for reasons of allergy or dosage, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

In recent years, compounded bioidentical hormone therapies (cBHTs) have been “marketed as a personalized and natural approach to enhanced wellness using tailored preparations that address a myriad of symptoms, including those associated with menopause and aging,” wrote Donald R. Mattison, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and chair of the committee charged with producing the report, and colleagues.

Although both cBHTs and bioidentical hormone therapies (BHTs) contain hormones that are structurally and chemically identical to those in the human body, cBHTs have not undergone the safety, efficacy, and quality control tests of approved FDA products, according to the report.

In addition, cBHTs have no standardization when it comes to medication doses, and the products often are available in topicals such as creams or ointments, as well as pills or pellets. The lack of standards in dosing or form can contribute to the risk of overdose, the report emphasized.

Various cBTH products continue to be marketed to the public for age-related hormone symptoms including hot flashes associated with menopause and decreased muscle mass associated with decreased testosterone. However, cBHTs are not approved by the FDA in part because the individually mixed products are not tested to verify the amount of hormone that may be absorbed.

In response to the increased use of cBHTs, the National Academies convened a Committee on the Clinical Utility of Treating Patients with Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and commissioned a report.

The two typical reasons to prescribe cBHT are either to provide a medication in an alternate dose not available in approved products or to omit components of a medication to which a patient is allergic, according to the report.

The report includes an algorithm to help guide clinicians in prescribing FDA-approved products, including off-label use of approved products, before cBHT products. “There is a dearth of high-quality evidence ... available to establish whether cBHT preparations are safe or efficacious for their prescribed uses,” the report states.

Of note, the committee also found no guidelines to recommend the use of cBHT products as a substitute for off-label use of FDA-approved BHT products for patients with female sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria, two conditions for which no FDA-approved BHT products exist.

“The North American Menopause Society applauds the efforts of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and endorses their recommendations on compounded bioidentical hormone therapy,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of The North American Menopause Society, wrote in a statement. “As a society, we remain committed to improving the care of midlife women through the promotion of evidence-based research, education, and clinical care.”

A report on the use of cBHTs was important at this time because of the widespread and largely unregulated use of these products with little data to support their safety and efficacy, Dr. Faubion said in an interview.

“There are no indications for use of custom compounded hormone therapy aside from an allergy to a component in the FDA-approved products or lack of availability of the needed dose, which would be exceedingly rare given the variety of forms and doses available with FDA-approved products,” she said.

Main concerns regarding the use of cBHTs are the lack of safety and efficacy data, Dr. Faubion emphasized. “Women believe these products are safer than FDA-approved products because they do not receive a package insert outlining potential risks as they do with FDA-approved products.” A lack of data and safety monitoring of cBHTs means that adverse effects are not monitored and reported, she said. Also, safety concerns persist regarding some forms of cBHTs such as pellets, which were specifically highlighted in the report.

Dr. Faubion said that she “absolutely” agrees with the report’s limited circumstances in which the used of cBHTs would be appropriate. “There are very few reasons why women would need to use compounded hormones instead of the FDA-approved versions, which are regulated for quality, efficacy and safety, readily available in the local pharmacy, and often covered by insurance.”

In terms of the future, “we need more education for women as consumers and for medical providers on this topic,” Dr. Faubion noted. Also, “clearly, there is a dearth of research on the true efficacy and safety of these compounded hormone therapy products.”

The statement from the National Academies crystallizes what experts have been saying for decades, according to Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The formal recommendations to limit the use of cBHTs “are not novel, but certainly needed,” and the statement “offers guidance regardless of your specialty,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

There is often a disconnect between consumers’ understanding of compounding and the reality of safety concerns, she said. “We are in a tabloid era,” and education is key to guiding patients toward the FDA-approved treatments with safety data and demonstrated effectiveness, she said. “Safety should be the driving factor.” In compounded products, “there is no consistency that what you get today is the same as what you get tomorrow,” and the lack of standardization of cBHTs increases the risk for adverse events, she emphasized.

For patients with special needs such as allergies or other specialized dosing requirements, as noted in the National Academies statement, clinicians should discuss the options with patients and monitor them regularly to head off potential adverse events such as the development of uterine cancer, said Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The research involved in creating the report was supported by the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mattison DR et al.; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The clinical utility of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: A review of safety, effectiveness, and use. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2020.)

The use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapies should be limited to patients who are not able to use a hormone therapy product approved by the Food and Drug Administration for reasons of allergy or dosage, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

In recent years, compounded bioidentical hormone therapies (cBHTs) have been “marketed as a personalized and natural approach to enhanced wellness using tailored preparations that address a myriad of symptoms, including those associated with menopause and aging,” wrote Donald R. Mattison, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and chair of the committee charged with producing the report, and colleagues.

Although both cBHTs and bioidentical hormone therapies (BHTs) contain hormones that are structurally and chemically identical to those in the human body, cBHTs have not undergone the safety, efficacy, and quality control tests of approved FDA products, according to the report.

In addition, cBHTs have no standardization when it comes to medication doses, and the products often are available in topicals such as creams or ointments, as well as pills or pellets. The lack of standards in dosing or form can contribute to the risk of overdose, the report emphasized.

Various cBTH products continue to be marketed to the public for age-related hormone symptoms including hot flashes associated with menopause and decreased muscle mass associated with decreased testosterone. However, cBHTs are not approved by the FDA in part because the individually mixed products are not tested to verify the amount of hormone that may be absorbed.

In response to the increased use of cBHTs, the National Academies convened a Committee on the Clinical Utility of Treating Patients with Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and commissioned a report.

The two typical reasons to prescribe cBHT are either to provide a medication in an alternate dose not available in approved products or to omit components of a medication to which a patient is allergic, according to the report.

The report includes an algorithm to help guide clinicians in prescribing FDA-approved products, including off-label use of approved products, before cBHT products. “There is a dearth of high-quality evidence ... available to establish whether cBHT preparations are safe or efficacious for their prescribed uses,” the report states.

Of note, the committee also found no guidelines to recommend the use of cBHT products as a substitute for off-label use of FDA-approved BHT products for patients with female sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria, two conditions for which no FDA-approved BHT products exist.

“The North American Menopause Society applauds the efforts of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and endorses their recommendations on compounded bioidentical hormone therapy,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of The North American Menopause Society, wrote in a statement. “As a society, we remain committed to improving the care of midlife women through the promotion of evidence-based research, education, and clinical care.”

A report on the use of cBHTs was important at this time because of the widespread and largely unregulated use of these products with little data to support their safety and efficacy, Dr. Faubion said in an interview.

“There are no indications for use of custom compounded hormone therapy aside from an allergy to a component in the FDA-approved products or lack of availability of the needed dose, which would be exceedingly rare given the variety of forms and doses available with FDA-approved products,” she said.

Main concerns regarding the use of cBHTs are the lack of safety and efficacy data, Dr. Faubion emphasized. “Women believe these products are safer than FDA-approved products because they do not receive a package insert outlining potential risks as they do with FDA-approved products.” A lack of data and safety monitoring of cBHTs means that adverse effects are not monitored and reported, she said. Also, safety concerns persist regarding some forms of cBHTs such as pellets, which were specifically highlighted in the report.

Dr. Faubion said that she “absolutely” agrees with the report’s limited circumstances in which the used of cBHTs would be appropriate. “There are very few reasons why women would need to use compounded hormones instead of the FDA-approved versions, which are regulated for quality, efficacy and safety, readily available in the local pharmacy, and often covered by insurance.”

In terms of the future, “we need more education for women as consumers and for medical providers on this topic,” Dr. Faubion noted. Also, “clearly, there is a dearth of research on the true efficacy and safety of these compounded hormone therapy products.”

The statement from the National Academies crystallizes what experts have been saying for decades, according to Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The formal recommendations to limit the use of cBHTs “are not novel, but certainly needed,” and the statement “offers guidance regardless of your specialty,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

There is often a disconnect between consumers’ understanding of compounding and the reality of safety concerns, she said. “We are in a tabloid era,” and education is key to guiding patients toward the FDA-approved treatments with safety data and demonstrated effectiveness, she said. “Safety should be the driving factor.” In compounded products, “there is no consistency that what you get today is the same as what you get tomorrow,” and the lack of standardization of cBHTs increases the risk for adverse events, she emphasized.

For patients with special needs such as allergies or other specialized dosing requirements, as noted in the National Academies statement, clinicians should discuss the options with patients and monitor them regularly to head off potential adverse events such as the development of uterine cancer, said Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The research involved in creating the report was supported by the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mattison DR et al.; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The clinical utility of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: A review of safety, effectiveness, and use. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2020.)

Previously, we discussed assessment and treatment for dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes. Now we’ll explore how to monitor for kidney disease in this population.

CASE CONTINUED

Mr. W’s basic metabolic panel includes an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 55 ml/min/1.73 m² (reference range, > 60 ml/min/1.73 m²). In the absence of any other markers of kidney disease, you obtain a spot urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The UACR results show a ratio of 64 mg/g, confirming stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Monitoring for Chronic Kidney Disease

CKD is characterized by persistent albuminuria, low eGFR, and manifestations of kidney damage, and it increases cardiovascular risk.² According to the ADA, clinicians should obtain a UACR and eGFR at least annually in patients who have had type 1 diabetes for at least 5 years and in all patients with type 2 diabetes.² Monitoring is needed twice a year for those who begin to show signs of albuminuria or a reduced eGFR. This helps define the presence or stage of CKD and allows for further treatment planning.

Notably, patients with an eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m², an unclear cause of kidney disease, or signs of rapidly progressive disease (eg, decline in GFR category plus ≥ 25% decline in eGFR from baseline) should be seen by nephrology for further evaluation and treatment recommendations.^2,36

Diabetes medications for kidney health. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists may be good candidates to promote kidney health in patients such as Mr. W. Recent trials show that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for progressive diabetic kidney disease, and the ADA recommends these medications for patients with CKD.^2,16,36 GLP-1 receptor agonists also may be associated with a lower rate of development and progression of diabetic kidney disease, but this effect appears to be less robust.^7,15,16 ADA guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients whose eGFR is adequate.³⁷

ADA and AACE guidelines offer specific treatment recommendations on the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in the management of diabetes.^10,37 Note that neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 agonists are strictly under the purview of endocrinologists. Rather, multiple guidelines state that they can be utilized safely by a variety of practitioners.^6,38,39

In the concluding part of this series, we will explore how to screen for peripheral neuropathy and diabetic retinopathy—identification of which can improve the patient’s quality of life.

Previously, we discussed assessment and treatment for dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes. Now we’ll explore how to monitor for kidney disease in this population.

CASE CONTINUED

Mr. W’s basic metabolic panel includes an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 55 ml/min/1.73 m² (reference range, > 60 ml/min/1.73 m²). In the absence of any other markers of kidney disease, you obtain a spot urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The UACR results show a ratio of 64 mg/g, confirming stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Monitoring for Chronic Kidney Disease

CKD is characterized by persistent albuminuria, low eGFR, and manifestations of kidney damage, and it increases cardiovascular risk.² According to the ADA, clinicians should obtain a UACR and eGFR at least annually in patients who have had type 1 diabetes for at least 5 years and in all patients with type 2 diabetes.² Monitoring is needed twice a year for those who begin to show signs of albuminuria or a reduced eGFR. This helps define the presence or stage of CKD and allows for further treatment planning.

Notably, patients with an eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m², an unclear cause of kidney disease, or signs of rapidly progressive disease (eg, decline in GFR category plus ≥ 25% decline in eGFR from baseline) should be seen by nephrology for further evaluation and treatment recommendations.^2,36

Diabetes medications for kidney health. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists may be good candidates to promote kidney health in patients such as Mr. W. Recent trials show that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for progressive diabetic kidney disease, and the ADA recommends these medications for patients with CKD.^2,16,36 GLP-1 receptor agonists also may be associated with a lower rate of development and progression of diabetic kidney disease, but this effect appears to be less robust.^7,15,16 ADA guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients whose eGFR is adequate.³⁷

ADA and AACE guidelines offer specific treatment recommendations on the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in the management of diabetes.^10,37 Note that neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 agonists are strictly under the purview of endocrinologists. Rather, multiple guidelines state that they can be utilized safely by a variety of practitioners.^6,38,39

In the concluding part of this series, we will explore how to screen for peripheral neuropathy and diabetic retinopathy—identification of which can improve the patient’s quality of life.

Previously, we discussed assessment and treatment for dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes. Now we’ll explore how to monitor for kidney disease in this population.

CASE CONTINUED

Mr. W’s basic metabolic panel includes an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 55 ml/min/1.73 m² (reference range, > 60 ml/min/1.73 m²). In the absence of any other markers of kidney disease, you obtain a spot urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The UACR results show a ratio of 64 mg/g, confirming stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Monitoring for Chronic Kidney Disease

CKD is characterized by persistent albuminuria, low eGFR, and manifestations of kidney damage, and it increases cardiovascular risk.² According to the ADA, clinicians should obtain a UACR and eGFR at least annually in patients who have had type 1 diabetes for at least 5 years and in all patients with type 2 diabetes.² Monitoring is needed twice a year for those who begin to show signs of albuminuria or a reduced eGFR. This helps define the presence or stage of CKD and allows for further treatment planning.

Notably, patients with an eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m², an unclear cause of kidney disease, or signs of rapidly progressive disease (eg, decline in GFR category plus ≥ 25% decline in eGFR from baseline) should be seen by nephrology for further evaluation and treatment recommendations.^2,36

Diabetes medications for kidney health. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists may be good candidates to promote kidney health in patients such as Mr. W. Recent trials show that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for progressive diabetic kidney disease, and the ADA recommends these medications for patients with CKD.^2,16,36 GLP-1 receptor agonists also may be associated with a lower rate of development and progression of diabetic kidney disease, but this effect appears to be less robust.^7,15,16 ADA guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients whose eGFR is adequate.³⁷

ADA and AACE guidelines offer specific treatment recommendations on the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in the management of diabetes.^10,37 Note that neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 agonists are strictly under the purview of endocrinologists. Rather, multiple guidelines state that they can be utilized safely by a variety of practitioners.^6,38,39

In the concluding part of this series, we will explore how to screen for peripheral neuropathy and diabetic retinopathy—identification of which can improve the patient’s quality of life.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Previously, we explored blood pressure control in a patient with diabetes. Now, we’ll discuss the value of a fasting lipid panel and treatment for dyslipidemia in this population.

CASE CONTINUED

Mr. W completed a fasting lipid panel, which revealed the following: triglycerides, 145 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level, 32 mg/dL; and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, 108 mg/dL. He is currently receiving low-dose statin therapy. Based on these results, Mr. W fits the criteria for dyslipidemia.

Dyslipidemia

Dyslipidemia marked by elevated LDL levels—as observed in Mr. W—is a well-known contributing factor to development of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Elevated triglycerides and low HDL levels also are often noted in these patients. Patients with diabetes are particularly vulnerable to atherosclerosis due to a combination of pro-inflammatory factors and hyperglycemic effects. Both the ADA and the AACE agree that lipid management, including fasting lipid panels and appropriate treatment, is of paramount importance in patients with diabetes.^7,8

Fasting Lipid Panels

The AACE recommends administering at least annual fasting lipid panels in all adults with diabetes, and LDL goal levels should be based on the cardiovascular risk of the patient.⁷ For patients with

• established ASCVD, the LDL goal is < 55 mg/dL
• risk factors for ASCVD (eg, hypertension, tobacco use, family history of ASCVD) in addition to diabetes, the LDL goal is < 70 mg/dL
• no risk factors, the LDL goal is < 100 mg/dL.⁷

Statin Therapy

Research indicates that statins reduce the risk for cardiovascular events and are recommended as first-line treatment for dyslipidemia.^2,7 Statin therapy is recommended for patients with LDL levels above goal without contraindications.¹⁰ Higher-dose statins have been shown to help improve cardiovascular outcomes, and most—if not all—guidelines recommend up-titration of these medications as tolerated by the patient. ^7,8,29 After initiation of statin therapy, clinicians should continue to monitor lipid levels every 4 to 12 weeks after a change in lipid therapy and then schedule monitoring annually.²

Unfortunately, a recent large-scale retrospective study of the medical records of 125,464 patients with type 2 diabetes showed that although 99% of the patients were at high risk for or already had ASCVD, only 63% were receiving the recommended statin therapy.³⁰ Therefore, all patients with diabetes at risk for ASCVD require evaluation to determine the need for statins.

Additional treatments. If the patient’s levels remain above goal, strong consideration should be given to additional therapies. Ezetimibe has been shown to have some benefit in reducing LDL levels and cardiovascular risk.³¹ PCSK9 inhibitors are a newer treatment for cardiovascular disease and are particularly beneficial for patients with known ASCVD. The FOURIER and ODYSSEY trials demonstrated that PCSK9 inhibitors had relative risk reductions of 48% to 53% for major ASCVD events and showed that these medications help reduce LDL levels and, most importantly, cardiovascular risk.^32,33

Continue to: Recommendations for other lipid components

Recommendations for other lipid components—non–HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, or LDL-P—are very specific and consideration may be given for referral to an endocrinologist or lipidologist for evaluation and treatment.^7,8 Evidence on reducing cardiovascular risk with therapies for decreasing triglyceride levels is limited. Recently though, icosapent ethyl received FDA approval as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL).^34,35 ADA guidelines recommend icosapent ethyl for patients with diabetes, 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor, and triglyceride levels between 135 and 499 mg/dL.²

In Part 4, I’ll explore how clinicians can best monitor for chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes. We’ll also discuss the medications used for improving kidney health in these patients.

Previously, we explored blood pressure control in a patient with diabetes. Now, we’ll discuss the value of a fasting lipid panel and treatment for dyslipidemia in this population.

CASE CONTINUED

Mr. W completed a fasting lipid panel, which revealed the following: triglycerides, 145 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level, 32 mg/dL; and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, 108 mg/dL. He is currently receiving low-dose statin therapy. Based on these results, Mr. W fits the criteria for dyslipidemia.

Dyslipidemia

Dyslipidemia marked by elevated LDL levels—as observed in Mr. W—is a well-known contributing factor to development of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Elevated triglycerides and low HDL levels also are often noted in these patients. Patients with diabetes are particularly vulnerable to atherosclerosis due to a combination of pro-inflammatory factors and hyperglycemic effects. Both the ADA and the AACE agree that lipid management, including fasting lipid panels and appropriate treatment, is of paramount importance in patients with diabetes.^7,8

Fasting Lipid Panels

The AACE recommends administering at least annual fasting lipid panels in all adults with diabetes, and LDL goal levels should be based on the cardiovascular risk of the patient.⁷ For patients with

• established ASCVD, the LDL goal is < 55 mg/dL
• risk factors for ASCVD (eg, hypertension, tobacco use, family history of ASCVD) in addition to diabetes, the LDL goal is < 70 mg/dL
• no risk factors, the LDL goal is < 100 mg/dL.⁷

Statin Therapy

Research indicates that statins reduce the risk for cardiovascular events and are recommended as first-line treatment for dyslipidemia.^2,7 Statin therapy is recommended for patients with LDL levels above goal without contraindications.¹⁰ Higher-dose statins have been shown to help improve cardiovascular outcomes, and most—if not all—guidelines recommend up-titration of these medications as tolerated by the patient. ^7,8,29 After initiation of statin therapy, clinicians should continue to monitor lipid levels every 4 to 12 weeks after a change in lipid therapy and then schedule monitoring annually.²

Unfortunately, a recent large-scale retrospective study of the medical records of 125,464 patients with type 2 diabetes showed that although 99% of the patients were at high risk for or already had ASCVD, only 63% were receiving the recommended statin therapy.³⁰ Therefore, all patients with diabetes at risk for ASCVD require evaluation to determine the need for statins.

Additional treatments. If the patient’s levels remain above goal, strong consideration should be given to additional therapies. Ezetimibe has been shown to have some benefit in reducing LDL levels and cardiovascular risk.³¹ PCSK9 inhibitors are a newer treatment for cardiovascular disease and are particularly beneficial for patients with known ASCVD. The FOURIER and ODYSSEY trials demonstrated that PCSK9 inhibitors had relative risk reductions of 48% to 53% for major ASCVD events and showed that these medications help reduce LDL levels and, most importantly, cardiovascular risk.^32,33

Continue to: Recommendations for other lipid components

Recommendations for other lipid components—non–HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, or LDL-P—are very specific and consideration may be given for referral to an endocrinologist or lipidologist for evaluation and treatment.^7,8 Evidence on reducing cardiovascular risk with therapies for decreasing triglyceride levels is limited. Recently though, icosapent ethyl received FDA approval as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL).^34,35 ADA guidelines recommend icosapent ethyl for patients with diabetes, 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor, and triglyceride levels between 135 and 499 mg/dL.²

In Part 4, I’ll explore how clinicians can best monitor for chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes. We’ll also discuss the medications used for improving kidney health in these patients.

Previously, we explored blood pressure control in a patient with diabetes. Now, we’ll discuss the value of a fasting lipid panel and treatment for dyslipidemia in this population.

CASE CONTINUED

Mr. W completed a fasting lipid panel, which revealed the following: triglycerides, 145 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level, 32 mg/dL; and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, 108 mg/dL. He is currently receiving low-dose statin therapy. Based on these results, Mr. W fits the criteria for dyslipidemia.

Dyslipidemia

Dyslipidemia marked by elevated LDL levels—as observed in Mr. W—is a well-known contributing factor to development of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Elevated triglycerides and low HDL levels also are often noted in these patients. Patients with diabetes are particularly vulnerable to atherosclerosis due to a combination of pro-inflammatory factors and hyperglycemic effects. Both the ADA and the AACE agree that lipid management, including fasting lipid panels and appropriate treatment, is of paramount importance in patients with diabetes.^7,8

Fasting Lipid Panels

The AACE recommends administering at least annual fasting lipid panels in all adults with diabetes, and LDL goal levels should be based on the cardiovascular risk of the patient.⁷ For patients with

• established ASCVD, the LDL goal is < 55 mg/dL
• risk factors for ASCVD (eg, hypertension, tobacco use, family history of ASCVD) in addition to diabetes, the LDL goal is < 70 mg/dL
• no risk factors, the LDL goal is < 100 mg/dL.⁷

Statin Therapy

Research indicates that statins reduce the risk for cardiovascular events and are recommended as first-line treatment for dyslipidemia.^2,7 Statin therapy is recommended for patients with LDL levels above goal without contraindications.¹⁰ Higher-dose statins have been shown to help improve cardiovascular outcomes, and most—if not all—guidelines recommend up-titration of these medications as tolerated by the patient. ^7,8,29 After initiation of statin therapy, clinicians should continue to monitor lipid levels every 4 to 12 weeks after a change in lipid therapy and then schedule monitoring annually.²

Unfortunately, a recent large-scale retrospective study of the medical records of 125,464 patients with type 2 diabetes showed that although 99% of the patients were at high risk for or already had ASCVD, only 63% were receiving the recommended statin therapy.³⁰ Therefore, all patients with diabetes at risk for ASCVD require evaluation to determine the need for statins.

Additional treatments. If the patient’s levels remain above goal, strong consideration should be given to additional therapies. Ezetimibe has been shown to have some benefit in reducing LDL levels and cardiovascular risk.³¹ PCSK9 inhibitors are a newer treatment for cardiovascular disease and are particularly beneficial for patients with known ASCVD. The FOURIER and ODYSSEY trials demonstrated that PCSK9 inhibitors had relative risk reductions of 48% to 53% for major ASCVD events and showed that these medications help reduce LDL levels and, most importantly, cardiovascular risk.^32,33

Continue to: Recommendations for other lipid components

Recommendations for other lipid components—non–HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, or LDL-P—are very specific and consideration may be given for referral to an endocrinologist or lipidologist for evaluation and treatment.^7,8 Evidence on reducing cardiovascular risk with therapies for decreasing triglyceride levels is limited. Recently though, icosapent ethyl received FDA approval as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL).^34,35 ADA guidelines recommend icosapent ethyl for patients with diabetes, 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor, and triglyceride levels between 135 and 499 mg/dL.²

In Part 4, I’ll explore how clinicians can best monitor for chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes. We’ll also discuss the medications used for improving kidney health in these patients.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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