CAD & Atherosclerosis

Wildfire-related air pollution in Europe kills more than non-wildfire air pollution. As climate change exacerbates the frequency and violence of wildfires, researchers are studying the health implications of mitigation methods such as prescribed fires.

Presenting at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), Cathryn Tonne, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona, Spain, said wildfire-related PM^2.5 is more toxic than general PM^2.5, leading to significantly higher mortality rates.

Prescribed, controlled fires have been employed worldwide to reduce the chance of uncontrolled, catastrophic fires. However, researchers wonder whether the techniques reduce the overall fire-related PM^2.5 or add up to it. “Prescribed fire increases ecosystem resilience and can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire,” said Jason Sacks, MPH, an epidemiologist in the Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the congress. “But it also leads to poorer air quality and health impacts, and we still don’t know what this means at a regional scale.”
 

Wildfire Pollution Kills More Than Other Air Pollution

Researchers at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona used a large dataset of daily mortality data from 32 European countries collected through the EARLY-ADAPT project. They utilized the SILAM model to derive daily average concentrations of wildfire-related PM^2.5, non-fire PM^2.5, and total PM^2.5 levels. They also employed GEOSTAT population grids at a 1-km resolution to calculate the attributable number of deaths across different regions, specifically focusing on data from 2006, 2011, and 2018.

The data analysis indicated that the relative risk per unit of PM^2.5 is substantially larger for wildfire-related PM2.5, compared with non-fire PM2.5. “We essentially assume that wildfire smoke PM^2.5 has the same toxicity as total PM2.5, but it’s increasingly clear that’s likely not the case,” Dr. Tonne said, presenting the study.

When employing exposure-response functions (ERFs) specific to wildfire smoke, researchers found that the attributable deaths from all causes of wildfire PM^2.5 were approximately 10 times larger than those calculated using total PM^2.5 exposure estimates. Dr. Tonne explained that this stark difference highlights the critical need for tailored ERFs that accurately reflect the unique health risks posed by wildfire smoke.

“Respiratory mortality usually has the strongest relative risks, and we’re seeing that in this study as well,” Dr. Tonne said. “Wildfire smoke seems to operate through quite immediate mechanisms, likely through inflammation and oxidative stress.”

One significant challenge of the study was the lack of uniform spatial resolution across all countries involved in the analysis. This inconsistency may affect how accurately mortality estimates can be attributed to specific PM^2.5 sources. Additionally, the study had limited statistical power for generating age- and sex-specific mortality estimates, which could obscure important demographic differences in vulnerability to wildfire smoke exposure. The analysis was also constrained to data available only up to 2020, thereby excluding critical wildfire events from subsequent years, such as those in 2022 and 2023, which may have further elucidated the health impacts of wildfire smoke in Europe.
 

Fires Prescription

Prescribed fires or controlled burns are intentional fires set by land managers under carefully managed conditions.

Historically, many forested areas have been subjected to fire suppression practices, which allow combustible materials like dry leaves, twigs, and shrubs to accumulate over time. This buildup leads to a higher likelihood of severe, uncontrollable wildfires. Prescribed fires can reduce these fuel loads and improve the health and resilience of ecosystems.

They release fewer pollutants and emissions than the large-scale, unmanageable wildfires they help prevent because they happen at lower temperatures. But they still introduce pollutants in the air that can negatively affect nearby communities’ health.

People with preexisting respiratory conditions, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are particularly vulnerable to smoke, which can trigger health issues like breathing difficulties, coughing, and eye irritation. The cumulative impact of increased burns raises concerns about long-term air quality, especially in densely populated areas. “We need to understand if we’re actually tipping the scale to having less wildfire smoke or just increasing the total amount of smoke.”

Mitigation strategies include accurately picking the right timing and weather conditions to determine when and where to conduct controlled burns and effective and timely communication to inform local communities about upcoming burns, the potential for smoke exposure, and how to protect themselves.

There is a growing need to improve public messaging around prescribed fires, Mr. Sacks said, because often the message communicated is oversimplified, such as “there will be smoke, but don’t worry. But that’s not the message we want to convey, especially for people with asthma or COPD.”

Instead, he said public health agencies should provide clearer, science-based guidance on the risks for smoke exposure and practical steps people can take to reduce their risk.
 

What Can Doctors Do?

Chris Carlsten, MD, director of the Centre for Lung Health and professor and head of the Respiratory Medicine Division at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, told this news organization that determining whether an exacerbation of a respiratory condition is caused by fire exposure or other factors, such as viral infections, is complex because both can trigger similar responses and may complement each other. “It’s very difficult for any individual to know whether, when they’re having an exacerbation of asthma or COPD, that’s due to the fire,” he said. Fire smoke also increases infection risks, further complicating diagnosis.

Dr. Carlsten suggested that physicians could recommend preventative use of inhalers for at-risk patients when wildfires occur rather than waiting for symptoms to worsen. “That is a really interesting idea that could be practical.” Still, he advises caution, stressing that patients should consult their providers because not all may react well to increased inhaler use.

He also highlighted a significant shift in the healthcare landscape, noting that traditionally, the focus has been on the cardiovascular impacts of pollution, particularly traffic-related pollution. However, as wildfire smoke becomes a growing issue, the focus is shifting back to respiratory problems, with profound implications for healthcare resources, budgets, and drug approvals based on the burden of respiratory disease. “Fire smoke is becoming more of a problem. This swing back to respiratory has huge implications for healthcare systems and respiratory disease burden.”

Mr. Sacks and Dr. Carlsten reported no relevant financial relationships. The study presented by Dr. Tonne received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101057131.
 

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

Wildfire-related air pollution in Europe kills more than non-wildfire air pollution. As climate change exacerbates the frequency and violence of wildfires, researchers are studying the health implications of mitigation methods such as prescribed fires.

Presenting at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), Cathryn Tonne, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona, Spain, said wildfire-related PM^2.5 is more toxic than general PM^2.5, leading to significantly higher mortality rates.

Prescribed, controlled fires have been employed worldwide to reduce the chance of uncontrolled, catastrophic fires. However, researchers wonder whether the techniques reduce the overall fire-related PM^2.5 or add up to it. “Prescribed fire increases ecosystem resilience and can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire,” said Jason Sacks, MPH, an epidemiologist in the Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the congress. “But it also leads to poorer air quality and health impacts, and we still don’t know what this means at a regional scale.”
 

Wildfire Pollution Kills More Than Other Air Pollution

Researchers at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona used a large dataset of daily mortality data from 32 European countries collected through the EARLY-ADAPT project. They utilized the SILAM model to derive daily average concentrations of wildfire-related PM^2.5, non-fire PM^2.5, and total PM^2.5 levels. They also employed GEOSTAT population grids at a 1-km resolution to calculate the attributable number of deaths across different regions, specifically focusing on data from 2006, 2011, and 2018.

The data analysis indicated that the relative risk per unit of PM^2.5 is substantially larger for wildfire-related PM2.5, compared with non-fire PM2.5. “We essentially assume that wildfire smoke PM^2.5 has the same toxicity as total PM2.5, but it’s increasingly clear that’s likely not the case,” Dr. Tonne said, presenting the study.

When employing exposure-response functions (ERFs) specific to wildfire smoke, researchers found that the attributable deaths from all causes of wildfire PM^2.5 were approximately 10 times larger than those calculated using total PM^2.5 exposure estimates. Dr. Tonne explained that this stark difference highlights the critical need for tailored ERFs that accurately reflect the unique health risks posed by wildfire smoke.

“Respiratory mortality usually has the strongest relative risks, and we’re seeing that in this study as well,” Dr. Tonne said. “Wildfire smoke seems to operate through quite immediate mechanisms, likely through inflammation and oxidative stress.”

One significant challenge of the study was the lack of uniform spatial resolution across all countries involved in the analysis. This inconsistency may affect how accurately mortality estimates can be attributed to specific PM^2.5 sources. Additionally, the study had limited statistical power for generating age- and sex-specific mortality estimates, which could obscure important demographic differences in vulnerability to wildfire smoke exposure. The analysis was also constrained to data available only up to 2020, thereby excluding critical wildfire events from subsequent years, such as those in 2022 and 2023, which may have further elucidated the health impacts of wildfire smoke in Europe.
 

Fires Prescription

Prescribed fires or controlled burns are intentional fires set by land managers under carefully managed conditions.

Historically, many forested areas have been subjected to fire suppression practices, which allow combustible materials like dry leaves, twigs, and shrubs to accumulate over time. This buildup leads to a higher likelihood of severe, uncontrollable wildfires. Prescribed fires can reduce these fuel loads and improve the health and resilience of ecosystems.

They release fewer pollutants and emissions than the large-scale, unmanageable wildfires they help prevent because they happen at lower temperatures. But they still introduce pollutants in the air that can negatively affect nearby communities’ health.

People with preexisting respiratory conditions, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are particularly vulnerable to smoke, which can trigger health issues like breathing difficulties, coughing, and eye irritation. The cumulative impact of increased burns raises concerns about long-term air quality, especially in densely populated areas. “We need to understand if we’re actually tipping the scale to having less wildfire smoke or just increasing the total amount of smoke.”

Mitigation strategies include accurately picking the right timing and weather conditions to determine when and where to conduct controlled burns and effective and timely communication to inform local communities about upcoming burns, the potential for smoke exposure, and how to protect themselves.

There is a growing need to improve public messaging around prescribed fires, Mr. Sacks said, because often the message communicated is oversimplified, such as “there will be smoke, but don’t worry. But that’s not the message we want to convey, especially for people with asthma or COPD.”

Instead, he said public health agencies should provide clearer, science-based guidance on the risks for smoke exposure and practical steps people can take to reduce their risk.
 

What Can Doctors Do?

Chris Carlsten, MD, director of the Centre for Lung Health and professor and head of the Respiratory Medicine Division at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, told this news organization that determining whether an exacerbation of a respiratory condition is caused by fire exposure or other factors, such as viral infections, is complex because both can trigger similar responses and may complement each other. “It’s very difficult for any individual to know whether, when they’re having an exacerbation of asthma or COPD, that’s due to the fire,” he said. Fire smoke also increases infection risks, further complicating diagnosis.

Dr. Carlsten suggested that physicians could recommend preventative use of inhalers for at-risk patients when wildfires occur rather than waiting for symptoms to worsen. “That is a really interesting idea that could be practical.” Still, he advises caution, stressing that patients should consult their providers because not all may react well to increased inhaler use.

He also highlighted a significant shift in the healthcare landscape, noting that traditionally, the focus has been on the cardiovascular impacts of pollution, particularly traffic-related pollution. However, as wildfire smoke becomes a growing issue, the focus is shifting back to respiratory problems, with profound implications for healthcare resources, budgets, and drug approvals based on the burden of respiratory disease. “Fire smoke is becoming more of a problem. This swing back to respiratory has huge implications for healthcare systems and respiratory disease burden.”

Mr. Sacks and Dr. Carlsten reported no relevant financial relationships. The study presented by Dr. Tonne received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101057131.
 

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

Wildfire-related air pollution in Europe kills more than non-wildfire air pollution. As climate change exacerbates the frequency and violence of wildfires, researchers are studying the health implications of mitigation methods such as prescribed fires.

Presenting at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), Cathryn Tonne, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona, Spain, said wildfire-related PM^2.5 is more toxic than general PM^2.5, leading to significantly higher mortality rates.

Prescribed, controlled fires have been employed worldwide to reduce the chance of uncontrolled, catastrophic fires. However, researchers wonder whether the techniques reduce the overall fire-related PM^2.5 or add up to it. “Prescribed fire increases ecosystem resilience and can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire,” said Jason Sacks, MPH, an epidemiologist in the Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the congress. “But it also leads to poorer air quality and health impacts, and we still don’t know what this means at a regional scale.”
 

Wildfire Pollution Kills More Than Other Air Pollution

Researchers at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona used a large dataset of daily mortality data from 32 European countries collected through the EARLY-ADAPT project. They utilized the SILAM model to derive daily average concentrations of wildfire-related PM^2.5, non-fire PM^2.5, and total PM^2.5 levels. They also employed GEOSTAT population grids at a 1-km resolution to calculate the attributable number of deaths across different regions, specifically focusing on data from 2006, 2011, and 2018.

The data analysis indicated that the relative risk per unit of PM^2.5 is substantially larger for wildfire-related PM2.5, compared with non-fire PM2.5. “We essentially assume that wildfire smoke PM^2.5 has the same toxicity as total PM2.5, but it’s increasingly clear that’s likely not the case,” Dr. Tonne said, presenting the study.

When employing exposure-response functions (ERFs) specific to wildfire smoke, researchers found that the attributable deaths from all causes of wildfire PM^2.5 were approximately 10 times larger than those calculated using total PM^2.5 exposure estimates. Dr. Tonne explained that this stark difference highlights the critical need for tailored ERFs that accurately reflect the unique health risks posed by wildfire smoke.

“Respiratory mortality usually has the strongest relative risks, and we’re seeing that in this study as well,” Dr. Tonne said. “Wildfire smoke seems to operate through quite immediate mechanisms, likely through inflammation and oxidative stress.”

One significant challenge of the study was the lack of uniform spatial resolution across all countries involved in the analysis. This inconsistency may affect how accurately mortality estimates can be attributed to specific PM^2.5 sources. Additionally, the study had limited statistical power for generating age- and sex-specific mortality estimates, which could obscure important demographic differences in vulnerability to wildfire smoke exposure. The analysis was also constrained to data available only up to 2020, thereby excluding critical wildfire events from subsequent years, such as those in 2022 and 2023, which may have further elucidated the health impacts of wildfire smoke in Europe.
 

Fires Prescription

Prescribed fires or controlled burns are intentional fires set by land managers under carefully managed conditions.

Historically, many forested areas have been subjected to fire suppression practices, which allow combustible materials like dry leaves, twigs, and shrubs to accumulate over time. This buildup leads to a higher likelihood of severe, uncontrollable wildfires. Prescribed fires can reduce these fuel loads and improve the health and resilience of ecosystems.

They release fewer pollutants and emissions than the large-scale, unmanageable wildfires they help prevent because they happen at lower temperatures. But they still introduce pollutants in the air that can negatively affect nearby communities’ health.

People with preexisting respiratory conditions, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are particularly vulnerable to smoke, which can trigger health issues like breathing difficulties, coughing, and eye irritation. The cumulative impact of increased burns raises concerns about long-term air quality, especially in densely populated areas. “We need to understand if we’re actually tipping the scale to having less wildfire smoke or just increasing the total amount of smoke.”

Mitigation strategies include accurately picking the right timing and weather conditions to determine when and where to conduct controlled burns and effective and timely communication to inform local communities about upcoming burns, the potential for smoke exposure, and how to protect themselves.

There is a growing need to improve public messaging around prescribed fires, Mr. Sacks said, because often the message communicated is oversimplified, such as “there will be smoke, but don’t worry. But that’s not the message we want to convey, especially for people with asthma or COPD.”

Instead, he said public health agencies should provide clearer, science-based guidance on the risks for smoke exposure and practical steps people can take to reduce their risk.
 

What Can Doctors Do?

Chris Carlsten, MD, director of the Centre for Lung Health and professor and head of the Respiratory Medicine Division at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, told this news organization that determining whether an exacerbation of a respiratory condition is caused by fire exposure or other factors, such as viral infections, is complex because both can trigger similar responses and may complement each other. “It’s very difficult for any individual to know whether, when they’re having an exacerbation of asthma or COPD, that’s due to the fire,” he said. Fire smoke also increases infection risks, further complicating diagnosis.

Dr. Carlsten suggested that physicians could recommend preventative use of inhalers for at-risk patients when wildfires occur rather than waiting for symptoms to worsen. “That is a really interesting idea that could be practical.” Still, he advises caution, stressing that patients should consult their providers because not all may react well to increased inhaler use.

He also highlighted a significant shift in the healthcare landscape, noting that traditionally, the focus has been on the cardiovascular impacts of pollution, particularly traffic-related pollution. However, as wildfire smoke becomes a growing issue, the focus is shifting back to respiratory problems, with profound implications for healthcare resources, budgets, and drug approvals based on the burden of respiratory disease. “Fire smoke is becoming more of a problem. This swing back to respiratory has huge implications for healthcare systems and respiratory disease burden.”

Mr. Sacks and Dr. Carlsten reported no relevant financial relationships. The study presented by Dr. Tonne received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101057131.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The metabolically unhealthy obesity phenotype, with its multiple comorbidities, may be the most practical group of people with obesity to screen for Cushing syndrome rather than all patients with obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a key clinical feature of Cushing syndrome and shares many overlapping characteristics. An ongoing debate continues about the need to screen patients with obesity for the rare endocrine disease, but phenotypes known as metabolically healthy or unhealthy obesity may help better define an at-risk population.
• To assess the prevalence of Cushing syndrome by metabolic health status, researchers conducted a retrospective study of 1008 patients with obesity (mean age, 40 years; 83% women; body mass index ≥ 30) seen at an endocrinology outpatient clinic in Turkey between December 2020 and June 2022.
• They screened patients for Cushing syndrome with an overnight dexamethasone suppression test (1 mg DST), an oral dexamethasone dose given at 11 PM followed by a fasting blood sample for cortisol measurement the next morning. A serum cortisol level < 1.8 mcg/dL indicated normal suppression.
• Patients were categorized into those with metabolically healthy obesity (n = 229) or metabolically unhealthy obesity (n = 779) based on the absence or presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, prediabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of Cushing syndrome in the study cohort was 0.2%, with only two patients definitively diagnosed after more tests and the remaining 10 classified as having subclinical hypercortisolism.
• Cortisol levels following the 1 mg DST were higher in the metabolically unhealthy obesity group than in the metabolically healthy obesity group (P = .001).
• Among the 12 patients with unsuppressed levels of cortisol, 11 belonged to the metabolically unhealthy obesity group, indicating a strong association between metabolic health and the levels of cortisol.
• The test demonstrated a specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 100% for screening Cushing syndrome in patients with obesity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening all patients with obesity for CS [Cushing syndrome] without considering any associated metabolic conditions appears impractical and unnecessary in everyday clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “However, it may be more reasonable and applicable to selectively screen the patients with obesity having comorbidities such as DM [diabetes mellitus], hypertension, dyslipidemia, or coronary artery disease, which lead to a metabolically unhealthy phenotype, rather than all individuals with obesity,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sema Hepsen, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara, Turkey, was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design of the study and inclusion of patients from a single racial group may limit the generalizability of the findings. The retrospective design prevented the retrieval of all relevant data on clinical features and fat distribution.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

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

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

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

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

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

TOPLINE:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.