User login
Vitamin D pearls
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Nine antihypertensive drugs associated with reduced risk of depression
The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.
“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.
In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.
Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.
All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.
Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.
After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.
At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).
For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
Interpreting the findings
A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.
“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”
In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.
In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.
Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.
“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”
A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.
“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.
Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.
According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.
When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.
However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”
The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.
SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.
The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.
“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.
In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.
Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.
All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.
Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.
After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.
At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).
For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
Interpreting the findings
A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.
“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”
In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.
In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.
Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.
“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”
A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.
“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.
Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.
According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.
When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.
However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”
The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.
SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.
The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.
“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.
In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.
Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.
All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.
Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.
After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.
At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).
For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
Interpreting the findings
A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.
“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”
In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.
In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.
Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.
“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”
A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.
“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.
Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.
According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.
When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.
However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”
The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.
SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.
FROM HYPERTENSION
FDA updates hydrochlorothiazide label to include nonmelanoma skin cancer risk
and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.
The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.
HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.
Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes
“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”
Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.
and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.
The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.
HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.
Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes
“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”
Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.
and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.
The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.
HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.
Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes
“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”
Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.
Humira topped drug-revenue list for 2019
Humira outsold all other drugs in 2019 in terms of revenue as cytokine inhibitor medications earned their way to three of the first four spots on the pharmaceutical best-seller list, according to a new analysis from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science.
Sales of Humira (adalimumab) amounted to $21.4 billion before discounting, Murray Aitken, the institute’s executive director, and associates wrote in their analysis. That’s more than double the total of the anticoagulant Eliquis (apixaban), which brought in $9.9 billion in its last year before generic forms became available.
The next two spots were filled by the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor Enbrel (etanercept) with $8.1 billion in sales and the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor Stelara (ustekinumab) with sales totaling $6.6 billion, followed by the chemotherapy drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) close behind after racking up $6.5 billion in sales, the researchers reported.
Total nondiscounted spending on all drugs in the U.S. market came to $511 billion in 2019, an increase of 5.7% over the $484 billion spent in 2018, based on data from the July 2020 IQVIA National Sales Perspectives.
These figures are “not adjusted for estimates of off-invoice discounts and rebates,” the authors noted, but they include “prescription and insulin products sold into chain and independent pharmacies, food store pharmacies, mail service pharmacies, long-term care facilities, hospitals, clinics, and other institutional settings.”
Those “discounts and rebates” do exist, however, and they can add up. Drug sales for 2019, “after deducting negotiated rebates, discounts, and other forms of price concessions, such as patient coupons or vouchers that offset out-of-pocket costs,” were $235 billion less than overall nondiscounted spending, the report noted.
Now that we’ve shown you the money, let’s take a quick look at volume. The leading drugs by number of dispensed prescriptions in 2019 were, not surprisingly, quite different. First, with 118 million prescriptions, was atorvastatin, followed by levothyroxine (113 million), lisinopril (96), amlodipine (89), and metoprolol (85), Mr. Aitken and associates reported.
Altogether, over 4.2 billion prescriptions were dispensed last year, with a couple of caveats: 90-day and 30-day fills were both counted as one prescription, and OTC drugs were not included, they pointed out.
Humira outsold all other drugs in 2019 in terms of revenue as cytokine inhibitor medications earned their way to three of the first four spots on the pharmaceutical best-seller list, according to a new analysis from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science.
Sales of Humira (adalimumab) amounted to $21.4 billion before discounting, Murray Aitken, the institute’s executive director, and associates wrote in their analysis. That’s more than double the total of the anticoagulant Eliquis (apixaban), which brought in $9.9 billion in its last year before generic forms became available.
The next two spots were filled by the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor Enbrel (etanercept) with $8.1 billion in sales and the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor Stelara (ustekinumab) with sales totaling $6.6 billion, followed by the chemotherapy drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) close behind after racking up $6.5 billion in sales, the researchers reported.
Total nondiscounted spending on all drugs in the U.S. market came to $511 billion in 2019, an increase of 5.7% over the $484 billion spent in 2018, based on data from the July 2020 IQVIA National Sales Perspectives.
These figures are “not adjusted for estimates of off-invoice discounts and rebates,” the authors noted, but they include “prescription and insulin products sold into chain and independent pharmacies, food store pharmacies, mail service pharmacies, long-term care facilities, hospitals, clinics, and other institutional settings.”
Those “discounts and rebates” do exist, however, and they can add up. Drug sales for 2019, “after deducting negotiated rebates, discounts, and other forms of price concessions, such as patient coupons or vouchers that offset out-of-pocket costs,” were $235 billion less than overall nondiscounted spending, the report noted.
Now that we’ve shown you the money, let’s take a quick look at volume. The leading drugs by number of dispensed prescriptions in 2019 were, not surprisingly, quite different. First, with 118 million prescriptions, was atorvastatin, followed by levothyroxine (113 million), lisinopril (96), amlodipine (89), and metoprolol (85), Mr. Aitken and associates reported.
Altogether, over 4.2 billion prescriptions were dispensed last year, with a couple of caveats: 90-day and 30-day fills were both counted as one prescription, and OTC drugs were not included, they pointed out.
Humira outsold all other drugs in 2019 in terms of revenue as cytokine inhibitor medications earned their way to three of the first four spots on the pharmaceutical best-seller list, according to a new analysis from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science.
Sales of Humira (adalimumab) amounted to $21.4 billion before discounting, Murray Aitken, the institute’s executive director, and associates wrote in their analysis. That’s more than double the total of the anticoagulant Eliquis (apixaban), which brought in $9.9 billion in its last year before generic forms became available.
The next two spots were filled by the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor Enbrel (etanercept) with $8.1 billion in sales and the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor Stelara (ustekinumab) with sales totaling $6.6 billion, followed by the chemotherapy drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) close behind after racking up $6.5 billion in sales, the researchers reported.
Total nondiscounted spending on all drugs in the U.S. market came to $511 billion in 2019, an increase of 5.7% over the $484 billion spent in 2018, based on data from the July 2020 IQVIA National Sales Perspectives.
These figures are “not adjusted for estimates of off-invoice discounts and rebates,” the authors noted, but they include “prescription and insulin products sold into chain and independent pharmacies, food store pharmacies, mail service pharmacies, long-term care facilities, hospitals, clinics, and other institutional settings.”
Those “discounts and rebates” do exist, however, and they can add up. Drug sales for 2019, “after deducting negotiated rebates, discounts, and other forms of price concessions, such as patient coupons or vouchers that offset out-of-pocket costs,” were $235 billion less than overall nondiscounted spending, the report noted.
Now that we’ve shown you the money, let’s take a quick look at volume. The leading drugs by number of dispensed prescriptions in 2019 were, not surprisingly, quite different. First, with 118 million prescriptions, was atorvastatin, followed by levothyroxine (113 million), lisinopril (96), amlodipine (89), and metoprolol (85), Mr. Aitken and associates reported.
Altogether, over 4.2 billion prescriptions were dispensed last year, with a couple of caveats: 90-day and 30-day fills were both counted as one prescription, and OTC drugs were not included, they pointed out.
Non-COVID-19 clinical trials grind to a halt during pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.
A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.
“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”
The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).
Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”
He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.
“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”
As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”
He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.
The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.
Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.
“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.
“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
Stopped for lack of funding
Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.
Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.
The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.
Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.
“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.
In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.
At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.
This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.
A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.
“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”
The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).
Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”
He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.
“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”
As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”
He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.
The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.
Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.
“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.
“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
Stopped for lack of funding
Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.
Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.
The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.
Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.
“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.
In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.
At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.
This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.
A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.
“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”
The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).
Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”
He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.
“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”
As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”
He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.
The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.
Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.
“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.
“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
Stopped for lack of funding
Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.
Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.
The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.
Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.
“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.
In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.
At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.
This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AHA statement recommends dietary screening at routine checkups
A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.
The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.
“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.
“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
Competing demands
Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.
Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”
Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.
Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.
Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.
“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
Top picks
The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:
- Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
- Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
- Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
- Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
- Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
- Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
- Be brief.
- Be useful for chronic disease management.
Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
One size does not fit all
No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.
For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.
Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.
“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
‘Ideal platform’
“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.
EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.
The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”
They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.
Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.
The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”
Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.
The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.
“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.
“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
Competing demands
Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.
Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”
Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.
Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.
Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.
“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
Top picks
The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:
- Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
- Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
- Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
- Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
- Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
- Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
- Be brief.
- Be useful for chronic disease management.
Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
One size does not fit all
No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.
For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.
Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.
“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
‘Ideal platform’
“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.
EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.
The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”
They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.
Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.
The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”
Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.
The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.
“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.
“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
Competing demands
Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.
Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”
Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.
Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.
Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.
“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
Top picks
The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:
- Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
- Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
- Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
- Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
- Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
- Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
- Be brief.
- Be useful for chronic disease management.
Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
One size does not fit all
No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.
For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.
Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.
“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
‘Ideal platform’
“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.
EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.
The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”
They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.
Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.
The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”
Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Hypertension often goes undertreated in patients with a history of stroke
A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.
The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.
More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
Continued surveillance is key
“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.
“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”
In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”
The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.
Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.
A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.
The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.
More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
Continued surveillance is key
“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.
“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”
In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”
The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.
Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.
A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.
The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.
More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
Continued surveillance is key
“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.
“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”
In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”
The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.
Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Hypertension medication adjustment less likely with polypill
A secondary analysis of a major study of polypill therapy for hypertension found that patients who don’t reach blood pressure targets are less likely to have their medications adjusted if they’re on fixed-dose combination therapy.
However, hypertension patients on low-dose, triple-pill combination therapy are more likely to achieve blood pressure control than are those on usual care.
The secondary analysis of Triple Pill vs. Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) was published online in JAMA Cardiology (2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739). The trial randomized 700 patients with hypertension in Sri Lanka to triple-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy or usual care during February 2016–May 2017, with follow-up ending in October 2017.
A greater proportion of FDC patients reached target BP by the end of the study compared with usual care, 70% vs. 55%. However, the study found that therapeutic inertia – the failure to intensify therapy in nonresponsive patients – was more common in the FDC group at 6- and 12-week follow-up: 87% vs. 64% and 90% vs. 65%, respectively; both differences were significant different at P < .001).
The once-daily FDC pill contained telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg.
“Using a triple low-dose combination blood-pressure pill reduced the need to uptitrate BP therapy as more patients are at target, but doctors were less likely to uptitrate with triple-pill therapy when it was needed,” lead author Nelson Wang, MD, a research fellow at the George Institute for Global Health in suburban Sydney, said in an interview.
“Overall, there were fewer treatment inertia episodes in the triple-pill group than in the usual care group, but this was driven by the fact that fewer triple-pill patients needed uptitration when coming to their follow-up visits,” Dr. Wang added.
The analysis found that clinicians who prescribed triple-pill FDC used 23 unique drug treatment regimens per 100 treated patients compared with 54 different regiments with usual care (P < .001). “There was a large simplification in care,” Dr. Wang said of the FDC approach.
Dr. Wang and colleagues called for greater efforts to address therapeutic inertia, particularly with FDC therapies, and suggested potential strategies consisting of patient education, incentives for appropriate treatment adjustments, and feedback mechanisms and reminders for physicians.
“There may also be a need for more dosage options with the FDC triple pill to allow physicians to intensify therapy without fear of overtreatment and adverse drug effects,” they wrote.
In an accompanying editorial (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2693), Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, associate professor of cardiology at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., noted that initiating treatment with FDC therapy doesn’t preclude a more personalized approach for patients who don’t achieve their BP target. “The real choice now is the choice of initial treatment,” she wrote, adding that future treatment guidelines should consider extending an FDC-first approach to patients with less severe levels of hypertension.
“The study showed there’s room for a both a population-based fixed-drug combination approach and a personalized approach to how we think about hypertension management with fixed-dose therapy,” she said in an interview. “It’s not a one-and-done situation.”
Dr. Wang has no financial relationships to disclose. Study coauthors received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Navar has no relevant financial relationships to report.
SOURCE: Wang N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739.
A secondary analysis of a major study of polypill therapy for hypertension found that patients who don’t reach blood pressure targets are less likely to have their medications adjusted if they’re on fixed-dose combination therapy.
However, hypertension patients on low-dose, triple-pill combination therapy are more likely to achieve blood pressure control than are those on usual care.
The secondary analysis of Triple Pill vs. Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) was published online in JAMA Cardiology (2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739). The trial randomized 700 patients with hypertension in Sri Lanka to triple-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy or usual care during February 2016–May 2017, with follow-up ending in October 2017.
A greater proportion of FDC patients reached target BP by the end of the study compared with usual care, 70% vs. 55%. However, the study found that therapeutic inertia – the failure to intensify therapy in nonresponsive patients – was more common in the FDC group at 6- and 12-week follow-up: 87% vs. 64% and 90% vs. 65%, respectively; both differences were significant different at P < .001).
The once-daily FDC pill contained telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg.
“Using a triple low-dose combination blood-pressure pill reduced the need to uptitrate BP therapy as more patients are at target, but doctors were less likely to uptitrate with triple-pill therapy when it was needed,” lead author Nelson Wang, MD, a research fellow at the George Institute for Global Health in suburban Sydney, said in an interview.
“Overall, there were fewer treatment inertia episodes in the triple-pill group than in the usual care group, but this was driven by the fact that fewer triple-pill patients needed uptitration when coming to their follow-up visits,” Dr. Wang added.
The analysis found that clinicians who prescribed triple-pill FDC used 23 unique drug treatment regimens per 100 treated patients compared with 54 different regiments with usual care (P < .001). “There was a large simplification in care,” Dr. Wang said of the FDC approach.
Dr. Wang and colleagues called for greater efforts to address therapeutic inertia, particularly with FDC therapies, and suggested potential strategies consisting of patient education, incentives for appropriate treatment adjustments, and feedback mechanisms and reminders for physicians.
“There may also be a need for more dosage options with the FDC triple pill to allow physicians to intensify therapy without fear of overtreatment and adverse drug effects,” they wrote.
In an accompanying editorial (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2693), Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, associate professor of cardiology at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., noted that initiating treatment with FDC therapy doesn’t preclude a more personalized approach for patients who don’t achieve their BP target. “The real choice now is the choice of initial treatment,” she wrote, adding that future treatment guidelines should consider extending an FDC-first approach to patients with less severe levels of hypertension.
“The study showed there’s room for a both a population-based fixed-drug combination approach and a personalized approach to how we think about hypertension management with fixed-dose therapy,” she said in an interview. “It’s not a one-and-done situation.”
Dr. Wang has no financial relationships to disclose. Study coauthors received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Navar has no relevant financial relationships to report.
SOURCE: Wang N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739.
A secondary analysis of a major study of polypill therapy for hypertension found that patients who don’t reach blood pressure targets are less likely to have their medications adjusted if they’re on fixed-dose combination therapy.
However, hypertension patients on low-dose, triple-pill combination therapy are more likely to achieve blood pressure control than are those on usual care.
The secondary analysis of Triple Pill vs. Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) was published online in JAMA Cardiology (2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739). The trial randomized 700 patients with hypertension in Sri Lanka to triple-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy or usual care during February 2016–May 2017, with follow-up ending in October 2017.
A greater proportion of FDC patients reached target BP by the end of the study compared with usual care, 70% vs. 55%. However, the study found that therapeutic inertia – the failure to intensify therapy in nonresponsive patients – was more common in the FDC group at 6- and 12-week follow-up: 87% vs. 64% and 90% vs. 65%, respectively; both differences were significant different at P < .001).
The once-daily FDC pill contained telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg.
“Using a triple low-dose combination blood-pressure pill reduced the need to uptitrate BP therapy as more patients are at target, but doctors were less likely to uptitrate with triple-pill therapy when it was needed,” lead author Nelson Wang, MD, a research fellow at the George Institute for Global Health in suburban Sydney, said in an interview.
“Overall, there were fewer treatment inertia episodes in the triple-pill group than in the usual care group, but this was driven by the fact that fewer triple-pill patients needed uptitration when coming to their follow-up visits,” Dr. Wang added.
The analysis found that clinicians who prescribed triple-pill FDC used 23 unique drug treatment regimens per 100 treated patients compared with 54 different regiments with usual care (P < .001). “There was a large simplification in care,” Dr. Wang said of the FDC approach.
Dr. Wang and colleagues called for greater efforts to address therapeutic inertia, particularly with FDC therapies, and suggested potential strategies consisting of patient education, incentives for appropriate treatment adjustments, and feedback mechanisms and reminders for physicians.
“There may also be a need for more dosage options with the FDC triple pill to allow physicians to intensify therapy without fear of overtreatment and adverse drug effects,” they wrote.
In an accompanying editorial (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2693), Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, associate professor of cardiology at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., noted that initiating treatment with FDC therapy doesn’t preclude a more personalized approach for patients who don’t achieve their BP target. “The real choice now is the choice of initial treatment,” she wrote, adding that future treatment guidelines should consider extending an FDC-first approach to patients with less severe levels of hypertension.
“The study showed there’s room for a both a population-based fixed-drug combination approach and a personalized approach to how we think about hypertension management with fixed-dose therapy,” she said in an interview. “It’s not a one-and-done situation.”
Dr. Wang has no financial relationships to disclose. Study coauthors received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Navar has no relevant financial relationships to report.
SOURCE: Wang N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
Cleaner data confirm severe COVID-19 link to diabetes, hypertension
Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.
These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.
A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.
The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.
The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.
“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”
One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.
The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.
The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.
Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.
These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.
A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.
The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.
The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.
“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”
One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.
The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.
The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.
Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.
These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.
A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.
The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.
The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.
“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”
One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.
The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.
The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.
FROM JOURNAL OF THE ENDOCRINE SOCIETY
Cardiovascular risk factors tied to midlife cognitive decline
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.