Lipid Disorders

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women's Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women's Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women's Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Triglyceride levels are a measure of cardiovascular risk and a target for therapy, but a focus on TG levels as a bad guy in CV risk assessments may be missing the mark, a population-based cohort study suggests.
 

It concluded, very preliminarily, that it may be the vigor of TG metabolism more than plasma levels that are associated with bad outcomes.

The analysis, based on 30,000 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, saw sharply increased risks for all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and cancer mortality over 10 years among those with robust TG metabolism.

Those significant risks, gauged by concentrations of two molecules considered markers of TG metabolic rate, were independent of body mass index (BMI) and a range of other TG-linked risk factors, including plasma TG levels themselves.

All-cause mortality jumped 31% for plasma levels of glycerol in the highest versus lowest quartiles and rose 18% for highest-quartile levels of beta-hydroxybutyrate. In parallel, CV mortality climbed 37% for glycerol and 18% for beta-hydroxybutyrate in the study, published in the European Heart Journal.

The findings “implicate triglyceride metabolic rate as a risk factor for mortality not explained by high plasma triglycerides or high BMI,” the report states. The study, it continues, may be the first to link increased mortality to more active TG metabolism – according to levels of the two biomarkers – in the general population.

The results were “really, really surprising,” senior author Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, said in an interview. They are “completely novel” and “may make people think differently” about TG and mortality risk.

Given their unexpected findings, the group conducted further analyses for evidence that the metabolite-mortality associations weren’t independent. “We tried to stratify them away, but they stayed,” said Dr. Nordestgaard, of the University of Copenhagen.

In a weight-stratified analysis, for example, findings were similar in people with normal weight and with overweight and who were obese, Dr. Nordestgaard observed. “Even in the ones with normal weight by World Health Organization criteria, we saw the same and maybe even stronger relationships” between TG metabolism and mortality.

The study authors were is careful to note the retrospective cohort study’s limitations, but its findings “at most support an association, not causation,” Michael Miller, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, observed in an interview. Therefore, it can’t answer “whether and to what extent glycerol and/or beta-hydroxybutyrate independently contribute to mortality beyond triglyceride levels per se.”

Assessing levels of the two biomarkers “was an interesting way to indirectly assess whole-body TG metabolism,” but they were not fasting levels, said Dr. Miller, who wasn’t part of the study.

Also, the analysis doesn’t account for heparinization and other factors “that artificially raise glycerol levels” and suffers in other ways “from the inherent limitations of residual confounding,” said Dr. Miller, who is also chief of medicine at Corporal Michael J Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia.

The analysis tracked 30,000 men and women, participants in the much larger Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, for a median of 10.7 years. During that time, 9,897 of them died.

Plasma levels of glycerol and beta-hydroxybutyrate, the study authors noted, were measured using high-throughput nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Glycerol levels greater than 80 mcmol/L represented the highest quartile and those less than 52 mcmol/L the lowest quartile. The corresponding beta-hydroxybutyrate quartiles were greater than 154 mcmol/L and less than 91 mcmol/L, respectively.

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

Triglyceride levels are a measure of cardiovascular risk and a target for therapy, but a focus on TG levels as a bad guy in CV risk assessments may be missing the mark, a population-based cohort study suggests.
 

It concluded, very preliminarily, that it may be the vigor of TG metabolism more than plasma levels that are associated with bad outcomes.

The analysis, based on 30,000 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, saw sharply increased risks for all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and cancer mortality over 10 years among those with robust TG metabolism.

Those significant risks, gauged by concentrations of two molecules considered markers of TG metabolic rate, were independent of body mass index (BMI) and a range of other TG-linked risk factors, including plasma TG levels themselves.

All-cause mortality jumped 31% for plasma levels of glycerol in the highest versus lowest quartiles and rose 18% for highest-quartile levels of beta-hydroxybutyrate. In parallel, CV mortality climbed 37% for glycerol and 18% for beta-hydroxybutyrate in the study, published in the European Heart Journal.

The findings “implicate triglyceride metabolic rate as a risk factor for mortality not explained by high plasma triglycerides or high BMI,” the report states. The study, it continues, may be the first to link increased mortality to more active TG metabolism – according to levels of the two biomarkers – in the general population.

The results were “really, really surprising,” senior author Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, said in an interview. They are “completely novel” and “may make people think differently” about TG and mortality risk.

Given their unexpected findings, the group conducted further analyses for evidence that the metabolite-mortality associations weren’t independent. “We tried to stratify them away, but they stayed,” said Dr. Nordestgaard, of the University of Copenhagen.

In a weight-stratified analysis, for example, findings were similar in people with normal weight and with overweight and who were obese, Dr. Nordestgaard observed. “Even in the ones with normal weight by World Health Organization criteria, we saw the same and maybe even stronger relationships” between TG metabolism and mortality.

The study authors were is careful to note the retrospective cohort study’s limitations, but its findings “at most support an association, not causation,” Michael Miller, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, observed in an interview. Therefore, it can’t answer “whether and to what extent glycerol and/or beta-hydroxybutyrate independently contribute to mortality beyond triglyceride levels per se.”

Assessing levels of the two biomarkers “was an interesting way to indirectly assess whole-body TG metabolism,” but they were not fasting levels, said Dr. Miller, who wasn’t part of the study.

Also, the analysis doesn’t account for heparinization and other factors “that artificially raise glycerol levels” and suffers in other ways “from the inherent limitations of residual confounding,” said Dr. Miller, who is also chief of medicine at Corporal Michael J Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia.

The analysis tracked 30,000 men and women, participants in the much larger Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, for a median of 10.7 years. During that time, 9,897 of them died.

Plasma levels of glycerol and beta-hydroxybutyrate, the study authors noted, were measured using high-throughput nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Glycerol levels greater than 80 mcmol/L represented the highest quartile and those less than 52 mcmol/L the lowest quartile. The corresponding beta-hydroxybutyrate quartiles were greater than 154 mcmol/L and less than 91 mcmol/L, respectively.

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

Triglyceride levels are a measure of cardiovascular risk and a target for therapy, but a focus on TG levels as a bad guy in CV risk assessments may be missing the mark, a population-based cohort study suggests.
 

It concluded, very preliminarily, that it may be the vigor of TG metabolism more than plasma levels that are associated with bad outcomes.

The analysis, based on 30,000 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, saw sharply increased risks for all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and cancer mortality over 10 years among those with robust TG metabolism.

Those significant risks, gauged by concentrations of two molecules considered markers of TG metabolic rate, were independent of body mass index (BMI) and a range of other TG-linked risk factors, including plasma TG levels themselves.

All-cause mortality jumped 31% for plasma levels of glycerol in the highest versus lowest quartiles and rose 18% for highest-quartile levels of beta-hydroxybutyrate. In parallel, CV mortality climbed 37% for glycerol and 18% for beta-hydroxybutyrate in the study, published in the European Heart Journal.

The findings “implicate triglyceride metabolic rate as a risk factor for mortality not explained by high plasma triglycerides or high BMI,” the report states. The study, it continues, may be the first to link increased mortality to more active TG metabolism – according to levels of the two biomarkers – in the general population.

The results were “really, really surprising,” senior author Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, said in an interview. They are “completely novel” and “may make people think differently” about TG and mortality risk.

Given their unexpected findings, the group conducted further analyses for evidence that the metabolite-mortality associations weren’t independent. “We tried to stratify them away, but they stayed,” said Dr. Nordestgaard, of the University of Copenhagen.

In a weight-stratified analysis, for example, findings were similar in people with normal weight and with overweight and who were obese, Dr. Nordestgaard observed. “Even in the ones with normal weight by World Health Organization criteria, we saw the same and maybe even stronger relationships” between TG metabolism and mortality.

The study authors were is careful to note the retrospective cohort study’s limitations, but its findings “at most support an association, not causation,” Michael Miller, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, observed in an interview. Therefore, it can’t answer “whether and to what extent glycerol and/or beta-hydroxybutyrate independently contribute to mortality beyond triglyceride levels per se.”

Assessing levels of the two biomarkers “was an interesting way to indirectly assess whole-body TG metabolism,” but they were not fasting levels, said Dr. Miller, who wasn’t part of the study.

Also, the analysis doesn’t account for heparinization and other factors “that artificially raise glycerol levels” and suffers in other ways “from the inherent limitations of residual confounding,” said Dr. Miller, who is also chief of medicine at Corporal Michael J Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia.

The analysis tracked 30,000 men and women, participants in the much larger Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, for a median of 10.7 years. During that time, 9,897 of them died.

Plasma levels of glycerol and beta-hydroxybutyrate, the study authors noted, were measured using high-throughput nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Glycerol levels greater than 80 mcmol/L represented the highest quartile and those less than 52 mcmol/L the lowest quartile. The corresponding beta-hydroxybutyrate quartiles were greater than 154 mcmol/L and less than 91 mcmol/L, respectively.

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

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.