Lipid Disorders

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

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

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Statins are associated with a low risk of adverse events in patients without a history of heart disease, but the potential harms are small and should not deter their use in primary prevention, a new systematic review and meta-analysis concludes.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

As reported July 14 in BMJ, the analysis showed a slightly increased risk for self-reported muscle symptoms after treatment with statins but no increased risk for clinically confirmed muscle disorders. Statins were associated with liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, and eye conditions, but not with diabetes.

“These risks are very, very small and, in fact, the adverse events we’re talking about are potentially quite mild, so if you weigh them against the benefits in terms of reduction in major cardiovascular events, the benefit-to-harm ratio is very much in favor of prescribing treatment for almost all patients,” senior author James P. Sheppard, MD, University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Although there’s an abundance of data showing that statins prevent recurrent cardiovascular events, their use is controversial in primary prevention, owing partly to the lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The absolute benefits of statins are smaller in primary prevention than in those with existing CVD, and the benefit-to-harm balance of treatment might be less favorable, the authors note.

A 2019 review suggested that the use of statins in primary prevention may be an example of “low-value care, having little benefit and potential to cause harm,” and a meta-analysis with more than 94,000 trial participants showed statins significantly increased risks for myopathy, renal dysfunction, and hepatic dysfunction.

Nevertheless, clinical guidelines have recommended wider use of statins for primary prevention, calling on physicians to weigh the benefits and harms.

“This is a reasonable expectation but, at present, the data on the harms of treatment are much less well understood in comparison to the benefits and there’s quite a lot of debate about the extent to which statins are associated with adverse events,” Dr. Sheppard said. “So we wanted to look at this in a bit more detail.”

The investigators analyzed results from 62 randomized controlled trials with 120,456 participants (mean age, 61; 40% women) followed for a mean of 3.9 years. All but two studies enrolled participants with hyperlipidemia or dyslipidemia. Common comorbidities were diabetes (11 studies), asymptomatic atherosclerosis (nine studies), and hypertension (four studies).

Statins increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms in 21 trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.06), liver dysfunction in 21 trials (OR, 1.33), renal insufficiency in eight trials (OR, 1.14), and cataracts or other eye-related conditions in six trials (OR, 1.23).

At the same time, statins decreased risks for myocardial infarction in 22 trials (OR, 0.72), stroke in 17 trials (OR, 0.80), and CVD death in 22 trials (OR, 0.83).

These risks translated into 15 more events of muscle symptoms, 8 more liver events, 12 more kidney events, and 14 more eye conditions per 10,000 patients treated for a year.

Statins were estimated to prevent 19 myocardial infarctions, 9 strokes, and 8 CVD deaths per 10,000 patients treated for a year.

Dr. Sheppard suggested that the inclusion of previously omitted trials and the decision to classify muscle problems as self-reported symptoms or clinically defined muscle disorders based on changes in creatine kinase might explain why they found the association with statins, whereas most systematic reviews have not.

“Some people would argue that these side effects are so small and so negligible that we shouldn’t talk about them, but the problem with doing that is if you’ve got a patient who has a preconceived idea that statins are harmful,” he added. “So having some empirical data where you can actually say: ‘Look, just 15 people out of 10,000 patients who’ve been treated for a year might experience one of those self-reported muscle symptoms,’ hopefully, will be helpful for physicians having discussions in practice.”

The analysis is “another data point indicating the overall safety and net benefit of statins for patients, even in primary prevention,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, chair of preventive medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that the renal insufficiency findings are difficult to interpret, given that the endpoint was defined as “any decline in renal function,” but that most will have been clinically unimportant. In general, most studies didn’t systematically look to ascertain some of adverse events but relied on participant or physician report. “Nonetheless, there is little reason to suspect bias in the collection of these data among the blinded studies.

“Although not definitive, given the study design and inclusion of very different types of studies and variable ascertainment of adverse events, the findings are reassuring that the risks of adverse events were small, and the potential adverse events identified were not very clinically significant and clearly outweighed by the important beneficial reductions in major cardiovascular events,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones.

“This study is yet another reminder of the safety of statins,” Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, a specialist in preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said in an email.

“I’m pleased to have a comprehensive study like this – a well-done, systematic review of randomized trials – to help combat the vast amounts of misinformation about statins circulating on the Internet.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also acknowledged the need to address misinformation, pointing out that the loss of contact with physicians and the adverse effects of the pandemic on weight and other health behaviors mean that many patients have had worsening of their cardiovascular risk factors.

“We must continue to help patients and the public understand that statins are beneficial for patients at sufficient risk for cardiovascular disease because of elevated cholesterol or their total burden of risk factors,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. “We must also be upfront about the risks of potential side effects, which are uncommon and almost always very easily managed with washout and dose reduction or switching to a different drug in the same class.”

Analyses by type of statin, however, showed few significant differences in adverse events. Rosuvastatin was associated with increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions, whereas atorvastatin and lovastatin increased the risk for liver dysfunction.

In dose-response meta-analyses, a possible modest dose-response relationship was detected only for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction.

The current data do not support tailoring the type of statin or dosage to reduce adverse events, the authors say, although routine monitoring of liver function during treatment is probably warranted in primary prevention, given the increased risk for liver dysfunction.

To help improve adherence to statins, the investigators said, additional studies are needed to identify patient characteristics crucial to the small risks of adverse events.

Limitations of the research, they said, are that many of the analyses were underpowered to detect between-group differences, many trials had short periods of follow-up, and some trials excluded vulnerable people more likely to have adverse events, such as those with high serum creatinine.

The study was funded by a British Heart Foundation PhD Scholarship held by first author Ting Cai. Dr. Sheppard reports receiving funding from a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship. Disclosures for other authors are listed in the paper. Dr. Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Navar report having no conflicts of interest.

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

Statins are associated with a low risk of adverse events in patients without a history of heart disease, but the potential harms are small and should not deter their use in primary prevention, a new systematic review and meta-analysis concludes.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

As reported July 14 in BMJ, the analysis showed a slightly increased risk for self-reported muscle symptoms after treatment with statins but no increased risk for clinically confirmed muscle disorders. Statins were associated with liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, and eye conditions, but not with diabetes.

“These risks are very, very small and, in fact, the adverse events we’re talking about are potentially quite mild, so if you weigh them against the benefits in terms of reduction in major cardiovascular events, the benefit-to-harm ratio is very much in favor of prescribing treatment for almost all patients,” senior author James P. Sheppard, MD, University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Although there’s an abundance of data showing that statins prevent recurrent cardiovascular events, their use is controversial in primary prevention, owing partly to the lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The absolute benefits of statins are smaller in primary prevention than in those with existing CVD, and the benefit-to-harm balance of treatment might be less favorable, the authors note.

A 2019 review suggested that the use of statins in primary prevention may be an example of “low-value care, having little benefit and potential to cause harm,” and a meta-analysis with more than 94,000 trial participants showed statins significantly increased risks for myopathy, renal dysfunction, and hepatic dysfunction.

Nevertheless, clinical guidelines have recommended wider use of statins for primary prevention, calling on physicians to weigh the benefits and harms.

“This is a reasonable expectation but, at present, the data on the harms of treatment are much less well understood in comparison to the benefits and there’s quite a lot of debate about the extent to which statins are associated with adverse events,” Dr. Sheppard said. “So we wanted to look at this in a bit more detail.”

The investigators analyzed results from 62 randomized controlled trials with 120,456 participants (mean age, 61; 40% women) followed for a mean of 3.9 years. All but two studies enrolled participants with hyperlipidemia or dyslipidemia. Common comorbidities were diabetes (11 studies), asymptomatic atherosclerosis (nine studies), and hypertension (four studies).

Statins increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms in 21 trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.06), liver dysfunction in 21 trials (OR, 1.33), renal insufficiency in eight trials (OR, 1.14), and cataracts or other eye-related conditions in six trials (OR, 1.23).

At the same time, statins decreased risks for myocardial infarction in 22 trials (OR, 0.72), stroke in 17 trials (OR, 0.80), and CVD death in 22 trials (OR, 0.83).

These risks translated into 15 more events of muscle symptoms, 8 more liver events, 12 more kidney events, and 14 more eye conditions per 10,000 patients treated for a year.

Statins were estimated to prevent 19 myocardial infarctions, 9 strokes, and 8 CVD deaths per 10,000 patients treated for a year.

Dr. Sheppard suggested that the inclusion of previously omitted trials and the decision to classify muscle problems as self-reported symptoms or clinically defined muscle disorders based on changes in creatine kinase might explain why they found the association with statins, whereas most systematic reviews have not.

“Some people would argue that these side effects are so small and so negligible that we shouldn’t talk about them, but the problem with doing that is if you’ve got a patient who has a preconceived idea that statins are harmful,” he added. “So having some empirical data where you can actually say: ‘Look, just 15 people out of 10,000 patients who’ve been treated for a year might experience one of those self-reported muscle symptoms,’ hopefully, will be helpful for physicians having discussions in practice.”

The analysis is “another data point indicating the overall safety and net benefit of statins for patients, even in primary prevention,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, chair of preventive medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that the renal insufficiency findings are difficult to interpret, given that the endpoint was defined as “any decline in renal function,” but that most will have been clinically unimportant. In general, most studies didn’t systematically look to ascertain some of adverse events but relied on participant or physician report. “Nonetheless, there is little reason to suspect bias in the collection of these data among the blinded studies.

“Although not definitive, given the study design and inclusion of very different types of studies and variable ascertainment of adverse events, the findings are reassuring that the risks of adverse events were small, and the potential adverse events identified were not very clinically significant and clearly outweighed by the important beneficial reductions in major cardiovascular events,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones.

“This study is yet another reminder of the safety of statins,” Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, a specialist in preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said in an email.

“I’m pleased to have a comprehensive study like this – a well-done, systematic review of randomized trials – to help combat the vast amounts of misinformation about statins circulating on the Internet.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also acknowledged the need to address misinformation, pointing out that the loss of contact with physicians and the adverse effects of the pandemic on weight and other health behaviors mean that many patients have had worsening of their cardiovascular risk factors.

“We must continue to help patients and the public understand that statins are beneficial for patients at sufficient risk for cardiovascular disease because of elevated cholesterol or their total burden of risk factors,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. “We must also be upfront about the risks of potential side effects, which are uncommon and almost always very easily managed with washout and dose reduction or switching to a different drug in the same class.”

Analyses by type of statin, however, showed few significant differences in adverse events. Rosuvastatin was associated with increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions, whereas atorvastatin and lovastatin increased the risk for liver dysfunction.

In dose-response meta-analyses, a possible modest dose-response relationship was detected only for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction.

The current data do not support tailoring the type of statin or dosage to reduce adverse events, the authors say, although routine monitoring of liver function during treatment is probably warranted in primary prevention, given the increased risk for liver dysfunction.

To help improve adherence to statins, the investigators said, additional studies are needed to identify patient characteristics crucial to the small risks of adverse events.

Limitations of the research, they said, are that many of the analyses were underpowered to detect between-group differences, many trials had short periods of follow-up, and some trials excluded vulnerable people more likely to have adverse events, such as those with high serum creatinine.

The study was funded by a British Heart Foundation PhD Scholarship held by first author Ting Cai. Dr. Sheppard reports receiving funding from a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship. Disclosures for other authors are listed in the paper. Dr. Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Navar report having no conflicts of interest.

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

Statins are associated with a low risk of adverse events in patients without a history of heart disease, but the potential harms are small and should not deter their use in primary prevention, a new systematic review and meta-analysis concludes.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

As reported July 14 in BMJ, the analysis showed a slightly increased risk for self-reported muscle symptoms after treatment with statins but no increased risk for clinically confirmed muscle disorders. Statins were associated with liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, and eye conditions, but not with diabetes.

“These risks are very, very small and, in fact, the adverse events we’re talking about are potentially quite mild, so if you weigh them against the benefits in terms of reduction in major cardiovascular events, the benefit-to-harm ratio is very much in favor of prescribing treatment for almost all patients,” senior author James P. Sheppard, MD, University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Although there’s an abundance of data showing that statins prevent recurrent cardiovascular events, their use is controversial in primary prevention, owing partly to the lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The absolute benefits of statins are smaller in primary prevention than in those with existing CVD, and the benefit-to-harm balance of treatment might be less favorable, the authors note.

A 2019 review suggested that the use of statins in primary prevention may be an example of “low-value care, having little benefit and potential to cause harm,” and a meta-analysis with more than 94,000 trial participants showed statins significantly increased risks for myopathy, renal dysfunction, and hepatic dysfunction.

Nevertheless, clinical guidelines have recommended wider use of statins for primary prevention, calling on physicians to weigh the benefits and harms.

“This is a reasonable expectation but, at present, the data on the harms of treatment are much less well understood in comparison to the benefits and there’s quite a lot of debate about the extent to which statins are associated with adverse events,” Dr. Sheppard said. “So we wanted to look at this in a bit more detail.”

The investigators analyzed results from 62 randomized controlled trials with 120,456 participants (mean age, 61; 40% women) followed for a mean of 3.9 years. All but two studies enrolled participants with hyperlipidemia or dyslipidemia. Common comorbidities were diabetes (11 studies), asymptomatic atherosclerosis (nine studies), and hypertension (four studies).

Statins increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms in 21 trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.06), liver dysfunction in 21 trials (OR, 1.33), renal insufficiency in eight trials (OR, 1.14), and cataracts or other eye-related conditions in six trials (OR, 1.23).

At the same time, statins decreased risks for myocardial infarction in 22 trials (OR, 0.72), stroke in 17 trials (OR, 0.80), and CVD death in 22 trials (OR, 0.83).

These risks translated into 15 more events of muscle symptoms, 8 more liver events, 12 more kidney events, and 14 more eye conditions per 10,000 patients treated for a year.

Statins were estimated to prevent 19 myocardial infarctions, 9 strokes, and 8 CVD deaths per 10,000 patients treated for a year.

Dr. Sheppard suggested that the inclusion of previously omitted trials and the decision to classify muscle problems as self-reported symptoms or clinically defined muscle disorders based on changes in creatine kinase might explain why they found the association with statins, whereas most systematic reviews have not.

“Some people would argue that these side effects are so small and so negligible that we shouldn’t talk about them, but the problem with doing that is if you’ve got a patient who has a preconceived idea that statins are harmful,” he added. “So having some empirical data where you can actually say: ‘Look, just 15 people out of 10,000 patients who’ve been treated for a year might experience one of those self-reported muscle symptoms,’ hopefully, will be helpful for physicians having discussions in practice.”

The analysis is “another data point indicating the overall safety and net benefit of statins for patients, even in primary prevention,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, chair of preventive medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that the renal insufficiency findings are difficult to interpret, given that the endpoint was defined as “any decline in renal function,” but that most will have been clinically unimportant. In general, most studies didn’t systematically look to ascertain some of adverse events but relied on participant or physician report. “Nonetheless, there is little reason to suspect bias in the collection of these data among the blinded studies.

“Although not definitive, given the study design and inclusion of very different types of studies and variable ascertainment of adverse events, the findings are reassuring that the risks of adverse events were small, and the potential adverse events identified were not very clinically significant and clearly outweighed by the important beneficial reductions in major cardiovascular events,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones.

“This study is yet another reminder of the safety of statins,” Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, a specialist in preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said in an email.

“I’m pleased to have a comprehensive study like this – a well-done, systematic review of randomized trials – to help combat the vast amounts of misinformation about statins circulating on the Internet.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also acknowledged the need to address misinformation, pointing out that the loss of contact with physicians and the adverse effects of the pandemic on weight and other health behaviors mean that many patients have had worsening of their cardiovascular risk factors.

“We must continue to help patients and the public understand that statins are beneficial for patients at sufficient risk for cardiovascular disease because of elevated cholesterol or their total burden of risk factors,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. “We must also be upfront about the risks of potential side effects, which are uncommon and almost always very easily managed with washout and dose reduction or switching to a different drug in the same class.”

Analyses by type of statin, however, showed few significant differences in adverse events. Rosuvastatin was associated with increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions, whereas atorvastatin and lovastatin increased the risk for liver dysfunction.

In dose-response meta-analyses, a possible modest dose-response relationship was detected only for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction.

The current data do not support tailoring the type of statin or dosage to reduce adverse events, the authors say, although routine monitoring of liver function during treatment is probably warranted in primary prevention, given the increased risk for liver dysfunction.

To help improve adherence to statins, the investigators said, additional studies are needed to identify patient characteristics crucial to the small risks of adverse events.

Limitations of the research, they said, are that many of the analyses were underpowered to detect between-group differences, many trials had short periods of follow-up, and some trials excluded vulnerable people more likely to have adverse events, such as those with high serum creatinine.

The study was funded by a British Heart Foundation PhD Scholarship held by first author Ting Cai. Dr. Sheppard reports receiving funding from a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship. Disclosures for other authors are listed in the paper. Dr. Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Navar report having no conflicts of interest.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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