CAD & Atherosclerosis

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercise recommendations typically focus on the duration of physical activity. For example, the World Health Organization advises at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week. A new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggested that step count could also be a useful metric. For some, such a recommendation might be easier to follow.

“It’s not so easy to keep track of how long you’ve been moderately active in a given week,” Cary P. Gross, MD, from the Department of Medicine at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, wrote in an editorial. “Counting steps might be easier for some people, especially since most carry a phone that can serve as a pedometer.”
 

The 10,000-Step Recommendation

However, there are no well-founded recommendations for step counts, partly due to a lack of scientific evidence linking steps with mortality and cardiovascular diseases. The often-cited 10,000 steps per day originated from a marketing campaign in Japan in the 1960s.

The research team led by Rikuta Hamaya, MD, from the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, analyzed data from participants in the Women’s Health Study. This clinical trial in the United States from 1992 to 2004 investigated the use of aspirin and vitamin E for cancer and cardiovascular disease prevention.

The current analysis included 14,399 women who were aged ≥ 62 years and had not developed cardiovascular disease or cancer. Between 2011 and 2015, they measured their physical activity and step count over 7 days using an accelerometer. They were followed-up for an average of 9 years.
 

Risk Reduction With Both Parameters

Moderate physical activity among the participants amounted to a median of 62 minutes per week, with a median daily step count of 5183. Hamaya and his colleagues found that both physical activity parameters were associated with lower mortality and reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Participants who engaged in more than the recommended 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week had a 32% lower mortality risk than those who were the least physically active. Women with > 7000 steps per day had a 42% lower mortality risk than those with the lowest daily step count.

Women in the top three quartiles of physical activity outlived those in the lowest quartile by an average of 2.22 months (time) or 2.36 months (steps), according to Hamaya and his team. The survival advantage was independent of body mass index.

For the endpoint of cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality), the researchers observed similar results as for mortality.
 

More Ways to Reach the Goal

Dr. Hamaya emphasized the importance of offering multiple ways to meet exercise recommendations: “For some, especially younger people, physical activity includes sports like tennis, soccer, walking, or jogging. All these can be tracked well with step counting. But for others, activity means cycling or swimming, which is easier to measure by duration.”

For Dr. Gross, the new findings provide a basis for using step counts to set physical activity goals — both in individual patient counseling and in formal guidelines. However, he stressed that further studies are necessary.

“The results need to be replicated in various populations, not just among men and younger people but also among ethnic minorities and lower-income populations, who often have less time and space for structured physical activity.”
 

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

Exercise recommendations typically focus on the duration of physical activity. For example, the World Health Organization advises at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week. A new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggested that step count could also be a useful metric. For some, such a recommendation might be easier to follow.

“It’s not so easy to keep track of how long you’ve been moderately active in a given week,” Cary P. Gross, MD, from the Department of Medicine at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, wrote in an editorial. “Counting steps might be easier for some people, especially since most carry a phone that can serve as a pedometer.”
 

The 10,000-Step Recommendation

However, there are no well-founded recommendations for step counts, partly due to a lack of scientific evidence linking steps with mortality and cardiovascular diseases. The often-cited 10,000 steps per day originated from a marketing campaign in Japan in the 1960s.

The research team led by Rikuta Hamaya, MD, from the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, analyzed data from participants in the Women’s Health Study. This clinical trial in the United States from 1992 to 2004 investigated the use of aspirin and vitamin E for cancer and cardiovascular disease prevention.

The current analysis included 14,399 women who were aged ≥ 62 years and had not developed cardiovascular disease or cancer. Between 2011 and 2015, they measured their physical activity and step count over 7 days using an accelerometer. They were followed-up for an average of 9 years.
 

Risk Reduction With Both Parameters

Moderate physical activity among the participants amounted to a median of 62 minutes per week, with a median daily step count of 5183. Hamaya and his colleagues found that both physical activity parameters were associated with lower mortality and reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Participants who engaged in more than the recommended 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week had a 32% lower mortality risk than those who were the least physically active. Women with > 7000 steps per day had a 42% lower mortality risk than those with the lowest daily step count.

Women in the top three quartiles of physical activity outlived those in the lowest quartile by an average of 2.22 months (time) or 2.36 months (steps), according to Hamaya and his team. The survival advantage was independent of body mass index.

For the endpoint of cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality), the researchers observed similar results as for mortality.
 

More Ways to Reach the Goal

Dr. Hamaya emphasized the importance of offering multiple ways to meet exercise recommendations: “For some, especially younger people, physical activity includes sports like tennis, soccer, walking, or jogging. All these can be tracked well with step counting. But for others, activity means cycling or swimming, which is easier to measure by duration.”

For Dr. Gross, the new findings provide a basis for using step counts to set physical activity goals — both in individual patient counseling and in formal guidelines. However, he stressed that further studies are necessary.

“The results need to be replicated in various populations, not just among men and younger people but also among ethnic minorities and lower-income populations, who often have less time and space for structured physical activity.”
 

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

Exercise recommendations typically focus on the duration of physical activity. For example, the World Health Organization advises at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week. A new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggested that step count could also be a useful metric. For some, such a recommendation might be easier to follow.

“It’s not so easy to keep track of how long you’ve been moderately active in a given week,” Cary P. Gross, MD, from the Department of Medicine at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, wrote in an editorial. “Counting steps might be easier for some people, especially since most carry a phone that can serve as a pedometer.”
 

The 10,000-Step Recommendation

However, there are no well-founded recommendations for step counts, partly due to a lack of scientific evidence linking steps with mortality and cardiovascular diseases. The often-cited 10,000 steps per day originated from a marketing campaign in Japan in the 1960s.

The research team led by Rikuta Hamaya, MD, from the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, analyzed data from participants in the Women’s Health Study. This clinical trial in the United States from 1992 to 2004 investigated the use of aspirin and vitamin E for cancer and cardiovascular disease prevention.

The current analysis included 14,399 women who were aged ≥ 62 years and had not developed cardiovascular disease or cancer. Between 2011 and 2015, they measured their physical activity and step count over 7 days using an accelerometer. They were followed-up for an average of 9 years.
 

Risk Reduction With Both Parameters

Moderate physical activity among the participants amounted to a median of 62 minutes per week, with a median daily step count of 5183. Hamaya and his colleagues found that both physical activity parameters were associated with lower mortality and reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Participants who engaged in more than the recommended 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week had a 32% lower mortality risk than those who were the least physically active. Women with > 7000 steps per day had a 42% lower mortality risk than those with the lowest daily step count.

Women in the top three quartiles of physical activity outlived those in the lowest quartile by an average of 2.22 months (time) or 2.36 months (steps), according to Hamaya and his team. The survival advantage was independent of body mass index.

For the endpoint of cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality), the researchers observed similar results as for mortality.
 

More Ways to Reach the Goal

Dr. Hamaya emphasized the importance of offering multiple ways to meet exercise recommendations: “For some, especially younger people, physical activity includes sports like tennis, soccer, walking, or jogging. All these can be tracked well with step counting. But for others, activity means cycling or swimming, which is easier to measure by duration.”

For Dr. Gross, the new findings provide a basis for using step counts to set physical activity goals — both in individual patient counseling and in formal guidelines. However, he stressed that further studies are necessary.

“The results need to be replicated in various populations, not just among men and younger people but also among ethnic minorities and lower-income populations, who often have less time and space for structured physical activity.”
 

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

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

The annual production of plastic worldwide has increased exponentially from about 2 million tons in 1950 to 460 million tons in 2019, and current levels are expected to triple by 2060.

Plastic contains more than 10,000 chemicals, including carcinogenic substances and endocrine disruptors. Plastic and associated chemicals are responsible for widespread pollution, contaminating aquatic (marine and freshwater), terrestrial, and atmospheric environments globally.

Atmospheric concentrations of plastic particles are on the rise, to the extent that in a remote station in the Eastern Alps in Austria, the contribution of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) to organic matter was comparable to data collected at an urban site.

The ocean is the ultimate destination for much of the plastic. All oceans, on the surface and in the depths, contain plastic, which is even found in polar sea ice. Many plastics seem to resist decomposition in the ocean and could persist in the environment for decades. Macro- and microplastic (MP) particles have been identified in hundreds of marine species, including species consumed by humans.

The quantity and fate of MP particles (> 10 µm) and smaller nanoplastics (< 10 µm) in aquatic environments are poorly understood, but what is most concerning is their ability to cross biologic barriers and the potential harm associated with their mobility in biologic systems.
 

MNP Exposure

MNPs can originate from a wide variety of sources, including food, beverages, and food product packaging. Water bottles represent a significant source of ingestible MNPs for people in their daily lives. Recent estimates, using stimulated Raman scattering imaging, documented a concentration of MNP of approximately 2.4 ± 1.3 × 10⁵ particles per liter of bottled water. Around 90% are nanoplastics, which is two to three orders of magnitude higher than previously reported results for larger MPs.

MNPs enter the body primarily through ingestion or inhalation. For example, MNPs can be ingested by drinking liquids or eating food that has been stored or heated in plastic containers from which they have leaked or by using toothpaste that contains them. Infants are exposed to MPs from artificial milk preparation in polypropylene baby bottles, with higher levels than previously detected and ranging from 14,600 to 4,550,000 particles per capita per day.
 

MNP and Biologic Systems

The possible formation of hetero-aggregates between nanoplastics and natural organic matter has long been recognized as a potential challenge in the analysis of nanoplastics and can influence toxicologic results in biologic exposure. The direct visualization of such hetero-aggregates in real-world samples supports these concerns, but the analysis of MNPs with traditional techniques remains challenging. Unlike engineered nanoparticles (prepared in the laboratory as model systems), the nanoplastics in the environment are label-free and exhibit significant heterogeneity in chemical composition and morphology.

A systematic analysis of evidence on the toxic effects of MNPs on murine models, however, showed that 52.78% of biologic endpoints (related to glucose metabolism, reproduction, oxidative stress, and lipid metabolism) were significantly affected by MNP exposure.
 

Between Risk and Toxicity

MNP can enter the body in vivo through the digestive tract, respiratory tract, and skin contact. On average, humans could ingest from 0.1 to 5 g of MNP per week through various exposure routes.

MNPs are a potential risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, as suggested by a recent study on 257 patients with carotid atheromatous plaques. In 58.4% of cases, polyvinyl chloride was detected in the carotid artery plaque, with an average level of 5.2 ± 2.4 μg/mg of plaque. Patients with MNPs inside the atheroma had a higher risk (relative risk, 4.53) for a composite cardiovascular event of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than participants where MNPs were not detectable inside the atheromatous plaque.

The potential link between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and MPs has been hypothesized by a study that reported a higher fecal MP concentration in patients with IBD than in healthy individuals. Fecal MP level was correlated with disease severity.

However, these studies have not demonstrated a causal relationship between MNPs and disease, and the way MNPs may influence cellular functions and induce stress responses is not yet well understood.
 

Future Scenarios

Current evidence confirms the fragmentation of plastic beyond the micrometer level and has unequivocally detected nanoplastics in real samples. As with many other particle distributions of the same size in the natural world, there are substantially more nanoplastics, despite their invisibility with conventional imaging techniques, than particles larger than the micron size.

The initial results of studies on MNPs in humans will stimulate future research on the amounts of MNPs that accumulate in tissue over a person’s lifetime. Researchers also will examine how the particles’ characteristics, including their chemical composition, size, and shape, can influence organs and tissues.

The way MNPs can cause harm, including through effects on the immune system and microbiome, will need to be clarified by investigating possible direct cytotoxic effects, consistent with the introductory statement of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development global policy forum on plastics, which states, “Plastic pollution is one of the great environmental challenges of the 21st century, causing wide-ranging damage to ecosystems and human health.”

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The annual production of plastic worldwide has increased exponentially from about 2 million tons in 1950 to 460 million tons in 2019, and current levels are expected to triple by 2060.

Plastic contains more than 10,000 chemicals, including carcinogenic substances and endocrine disruptors. Plastic and associated chemicals are responsible for widespread pollution, contaminating aquatic (marine and freshwater), terrestrial, and atmospheric environments globally.

Atmospheric concentrations of plastic particles are on the rise, to the extent that in a remote station in the Eastern Alps in Austria, the contribution of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) to organic matter was comparable to data collected at an urban site.

The ocean is the ultimate destination for much of the plastic. All oceans, on the surface and in the depths, contain plastic, which is even found in polar sea ice. Many plastics seem to resist decomposition in the ocean and could persist in the environment for decades. Macro- and microplastic (MP) particles have been identified in hundreds of marine species, including species consumed by humans.

The quantity and fate of MP particles (> 10 µm) and smaller nanoplastics (< 10 µm) in aquatic environments are poorly understood, but what is most concerning is their ability to cross biologic barriers and the potential harm associated with their mobility in biologic systems.
 

MNP Exposure

MNPs can originate from a wide variety of sources, including food, beverages, and food product packaging. Water bottles represent a significant source of ingestible MNPs for people in their daily lives. Recent estimates, using stimulated Raman scattering imaging, documented a concentration of MNP of approximately 2.4 ± 1.3 × 10⁵ particles per liter of bottled water. Around 90% are nanoplastics, which is two to three orders of magnitude higher than previously reported results for larger MPs.

MNPs enter the body primarily through ingestion or inhalation. For example, MNPs can be ingested by drinking liquids or eating food that has been stored or heated in plastic containers from which they have leaked or by using toothpaste that contains them. Infants are exposed to MPs from artificial milk preparation in polypropylene baby bottles, with higher levels than previously detected and ranging from 14,600 to 4,550,000 particles per capita per day.
 

MNP and Biologic Systems

The possible formation of hetero-aggregates between nanoplastics and natural organic matter has long been recognized as a potential challenge in the analysis of nanoplastics and can influence toxicologic results in biologic exposure. The direct visualization of such hetero-aggregates in real-world samples supports these concerns, but the analysis of MNPs with traditional techniques remains challenging. Unlike engineered nanoparticles (prepared in the laboratory as model systems), the nanoplastics in the environment are label-free and exhibit significant heterogeneity in chemical composition and morphology.

A systematic analysis of evidence on the toxic effects of MNPs on murine models, however, showed that 52.78% of biologic endpoints (related to glucose metabolism, reproduction, oxidative stress, and lipid metabolism) were significantly affected by MNP exposure.
 

Between Risk and Toxicity

MNP can enter the body in vivo through the digestive tract, respiratory tract, and skin contact. On average, humans could ingest from 0.1 to 5 g of MNP per week through various exposure routes.

MNPs are a potential risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, as suggested by a recent study on 257 patients with carotid atheromatous plaques. In 58.4% of cases, polyvinyl chloride was detected in the carotid artery plaque, with an average level of 5.2 ± 2.4 μg/mg of plaque. Patients with MNPs inside the atheroma had a higher risk (relative risk, 4.53) for a composite cardiovascular event of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than participants where MNPs were not detectable inside the atheromatous plaque.

The potential link between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and MPs has been hypothesized by a study that reported a higher fecal MP concentration in patients with IBD than in healthy individuals. Fecal MP level was correlated with disease severity.

However, these studies have not demonstrated a causal relationship between MNPs and disease, and the way MNPs may influence cellular functions and induce stress responses is not yet well understood.
 

Future Scenarios

Current evidence confirms the fragmentation of plastic beyond the micrometer level and has unequivocally detected nanoplastics in real samples. As with many other particle distributions of the same size in the natural world, there are substantially more nanoplastics, despite their invisibility with conventional imaging techniques, than particles larger than the micron size.

The initial results of studies on MNPs in humans will stimulate future research on the amounts of MNPs that accumulate in tissue over a person’s lifetime. Researchers also will examine how the particles’ characteristics, including their chemical composition, size, and shape, can influence organs and tissues.

The way MNPs can cause harm, including through effects on the immune system and microbiome, will need to be clarified by investigating possible direct cytotoxic effects, consistent with the introductory statement of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development global policy forum on plastics, which states, “Plastic pollution is one of the great environmental challenges of the 21st century, causing wide-ranging damage to ecosystems and human health.”

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The annual production of plastic worldwide has increased exponentially from about 2 million tons in 1950 to 460 million tons in 2019, and current levels are expected to triple by 2060.

Plastic contains more than 10,000 chemicals, including carcinogenic substances and endocrine disruptors. Plastic and associated chemicals are responsible for widespread pollution, contaminating aquatic (marine and freshwater), terrestrial, and atmospheric environments globally.

Atmospheric concentrations of plastic particles are on the rise, to the extent that in a remote station in the Eastern Alps in Austria, the contribution of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) to organic matter was comparable to data collected at an urban site.

The ocean is the ultimate destination for much of the plastic. All oceans, on the surface and in the depths, contain plastic, which is even found in polar sea ice. Many plastics seem to resist decomposition in the ocean and could persist in the environment for decades. Macro- and microplastic (MP) particles have been identified in hundreds of marine species, including species consumed by humans.

The quantity and fate of MP particles (> 10 µm) and smaller nanoplastics (< 10 µm) in aquatic environments are poorly understood, but what is most concerning is their ability to cross biologic barriers and the potential harm associated with their mobility in biologic systems.
 

MNP Exposure

MNPs can originate from a wide variety of sources, including food, beverages, and food product packaging. Water bottles represent a significant source of ingestible MNPs for people in their daily lives. Recent estimates, using stimulated Raman scattering imaging, documented a concentration of MNP of approximately 2.4 ± 1.3 × 10⁵ particles per liter of bottled water. Around 90% are nanoplastics, which is two to three orders of magnitude higher than previously reported results for larger MPs.

MNPs enter the body primarily through ingestion or inhalation. For example, MNPs can be ingested by drinking liquids or eating food that has been stored or heated in plastic containers from which they have leaked or by using toothpaste that contains them. Infants are exposed to MPs from artificial milk preparation in polypropylene baby bottles, with higher levels than previously detected and ranging from 14,600 to 4,550,000 particles per capita per day.
 

MNP and Biologic Systems

The possible formation of hetero-aggregates between nanoplastics and natural organic matter has long been recognized as a potential challenge in the analysis of nanoplastics and can influence toxicologic results in biologic exposure. The direct visualization of such hetero-aggregates in real-world samples supports these concerns, but the analysis of MNPs with traditional techniques remains challenging. Unlike engineered nanoparticles (prepared in the laboratory as model systems), the nanoplastics in the environment are label-free and exhibit significant heterogeneity in chemical composition and morphology.

A systematic analysis of evidence on the toxic effects of MNPs on murine models, however, showed that 52.78% of biologic endpoints (related to glucose metabolism, reproduction, oxidative stress, and lipid metabolism) were significantly affected by MNP exposure.
 

Between Risk and Toxicity

MNP can enter the body in vivo through the digestive tract, respiratory tract, and skin contact. On average, humans could ingest from 0.1 to 5 g of MNP per week through various exposure routes.

MNPs are a potential risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, as suggested by a recent study on 257 patients with carotid atheromatous plaques. In 58.4% of cases, polyvinyl chloride was detected in the carotid artery plaque, with an average level of 5.2 ± 2.4 μg/mg of plaque. Patients with MNPs inside the atheroma had a higher risk (relative risk, 4.53) for a composite cardiovascular event of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than participants where MNPs were not detectable inside the atheromatous plaque.

The potential link between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and MPs has been hypothesized by a study that reported a higher fecal MP concentration in patients with IBD than in healthy individuals. Fecal MP level was correlated with disease severity.

However, these studies have not demonstrated a causal relationship between MNPs and disease, and the way MNPs may influence cellular functions and induce stress responses is not yet well understood.
 

Future Scenarios

Current evidence confirms the fragmentation of plastic beyond the micrometer level and has unequivocally detected nanoplastics in real samples. As with many other particle distributions of the same size in the natural world, there are substantially more nanoplastics, despite their invisibility with conventional imaging techniques, than particles larger than the micron size.

The initial results of studies on MNPs in humans will stimulate future research on the amounts of MNPs that accumulate in tissue over a person’s lifetime. Researchers also will examine how the particles’ characteristics, including their chemical composition, size, and shape, can influence organs and tissues.

The way MNPs can cause harm, including through effects on the immune system and microbiome, will need to be clarified by investigating possible direct cytotoxic effects, consistent with the introductory statement of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development global policy forum on plastics, which states, “Plastic pollution is one of the great environmental challenges of the 21st century, causing wide-ranging damage to ecosystems and human health.”

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
• This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
• Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
• A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
• The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
• After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
• Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
• The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”

SOURCE:

First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
• This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
• Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
• A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
• The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
• After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
• Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
• The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”

SOURCE:

First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
• This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
• Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
• A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
• The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
• After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
• Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
• The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”

SOURCE:

First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new systematic literature review adds complexity to the controversy over testosterone’s relationship to risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

Last year, the TRAVERSE (Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy ResponSE in Hypogonadal Men) trial was the first randomized, placebo-controlled study designed and powered to determine whether testosterone therapy increased risk for major cardiovascular events in men (ages 45-80 years). Its conclusions provided reassurance that modest use of testosterone therapy short term does not increase CVD risk.

But other studies have had different conclusions and TRAVERSE left unanswered questions, so Bu B. Yeap, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and colleagues completed a literature review with 11 prospective cohort studies of community-dwelling men with sex steroid levels measured with mass spectrometry. Nine of the studies provided individual participation data (IPD); two used aggregate data, and all had at least 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine .

Dr. Yeap’s team concluded that certain groups of men have higher risk for CVD events. In this study, men with very low testosterone, high luteinizing hormone (LH), or very low estradiol concentrations had higher all-cause mortality. Sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) concentration was positively associated and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels were nonlinearly associated with all-cause mortality and CVD mortality.

The testosterone level below which men had higher risk of death from any cause was 7.4 nmol/L (213 ng/dL), regardless of LH concentration, the researchers concluded, writing, “This adds to information on reference ranges based on distributions of testosterone in selected samples of healthy men.”

The link between higher SHBG concentrations and higher all-cause mortality “may be related to its role as the major binding protein for sex steroids in the circulation,” the authors wrote. “We found a U-shaped association of DHT with all-cause and CVD-related mortality risks, which were higher at lower and very high DHT concentrations. Men with very low DHT concentrations also had increased risk for incident CVD events. Further investigation into potential underlying mechanisms for these associations is warranted.”
 

Rigorous Methodology Adds Value

Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, with the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, pointed out in an accompanying editorial that the study’s findings are particularly valuable because of the team’s rigorous methodology. The team measured testosterone with the gold standard, mass spectrometry, which can also measure DHT and estradiol more accurately than widely available commercial immunoassays, which “are inaccurate for measurement of these sex steroids in men, who typically have low serum concentrations of these two metabolites of testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Also, the researchers obtained raw data from the nine IPD studies and reanalyzed the combined data, which allows for more sophisticated analysis when combining data from multiple studies, Dr. Anawalt explained.

The main finding from the Yeap et al. study, he wrote, is that high testosterone concentrations at baseline were not linked with increased deaths from CVD or from all causes “but very low serum total testosterone concentrations at baseline were.

“It is tempting to hypothesize that testosterone therapy might have cardiovascular benefits solely in patients with very low concentrations of serum total testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt wrote.

He pointed out as particularly interesting the findings for DHT and estradiol.

“The finding that a low serum estradiol concentration is associated with higher all-cause mortality adds another reason (in addition to the adverse effects on body fat and bone health) to avoid aromatase inhibitors that are commonly taken by persons who use anabolic steroids,” he wrote. “The prospect of a U-shaped curve for the relationship between serum DHT and higher cardiovascular risk warrants further study.”

The work is funded by the Government of Western Australia and Lawley Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ and editorial writer’s conflicts of interest are listed in the full study.

A new systematic literature review adds complexity to the controversy over testosterone’s relationship to risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

Last year, the TRAVERSE (Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy ResponSE in Hypogonadal Men) trial was the first randomized, placebo-controlled study designed and powered to determine whether testosterone therapy increased risk for major cardiovascular events in men (ages 45-80 years). Its conclusions provided reassurance that modest use of testosterone therapy short term does not increase CVD risk.

But other studies have had different conclusions and TRAVERSE left unanswered questions, so Bu B. Yeap, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and colleagues completed a literature review with 11 prospective cohort studies of community-dwelling men with sex steroid levels measured with mass spectrometry. Nine of the studies provided individual participation data (IPD); two used aggregate data, and all had at least 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine .

Dr. Yeap’s team concluded that certain groups of men have higher risk for CVD events. In this study, men with very low testosterone, high luteinizing hormone (LH), or very low estradiol concentrations had higher all-cause mortality. Sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) concentration was positively associated and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels were nonlinearly associated with all-cause mortality and CVD mortality.

The testosterone level below which men had higher risk of death from any cause was 7.4 nmol/L (213 ng/dL), regardless of LH concentration, the researchers concluded, writing, “This adds to information on reference ranges based on distributions of testosterone in selected samples of healthy men.”

The link between higher SHBG concentrations and higher all-cause mortality “may be related to its role as the major binding protein for sex steroids in the circulation,” the authors wrote. “We found a U-shaped association of DHT with all-cause and CVD-related mortality risks, which were higher at lower and very high DHT concentrations. Men with very low DHT concentrations also had increased risk for incident CVD events. Further investigation into potential underlying mechanisms for these associations is warranted.”
 

Rigorous Methodology Adds Value

Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, with the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, pointed out in an accompanying editorial that the study’s findings are particularly valuable because of the team’s rigorous methodology. The team measured testosterone with the gold standard, mass spectrometry, which can also measure DHT and estradiol more accurately than widely available commercial immunoassays, which “are inaccurate for measurement of these sex steroids in men, who typically have low serum concentrations of these two metabolites of testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Also, the researchers obtained raw data from the nine IPD studies and reanalyzed the combined data, which allows for more sophisticated analysis when combining data from multiple studies, Dr. Anawalt explained.

The main finding from the Yeap et al. study, he wrote, is that high testosterone concentrations at baseline were not linked with increased deaths from CVD or from all causes “but very low serum total testosterone concentrations at baseline were.

“It is tempting to hypothesize that testosterone therapy might have cardiovascular benefits solely in patients with very low concentrations of serum total testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt wrote.

He pointed out as particularly interesting the findings for DHT and estradiol.

“The finding that a low serum estradiol concentration is associated with higher all-cause mortality adds another reason (in addition to the adverse effects on body fat and bone health) to avoid aromatase inhibitors that are commonly taken by persons who use anabolic steroids,” he wrote. “The prospect of a U-shaped curve for the relationship between serum DHT and higher cardiovascular risk warrants further study.”

The work is funded by the Government of Western Australia and Lawley Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ and editorial writer’s conflicts of interest are listed in the full study.

A new systematic literature review adds complexity to the controversy over testosterone’s relationship to risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

Last year, the TRAVERSE (Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy ResponSE in Hypogonadal Men) trial was the first randomized, placebo-controlled study designed and powered to determine whether testosterone therapy increased risk for major cardiovascular events in men (ages 45-80 years). Its conclusions provided reassurance that modest use of testosterone therapy short term does not increase CVD risk.

But other studies have had different conclusions and TRAVERSE left unanswered questions, so Bu B. Yeap, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and colleagues completed a literature review with 11 prospective cohort studies of community-dwelling men with sex steroid levels measured with mass spectrometry. Nine of the studies provided individual participation data (IPD); two used aggregate data, and all had at least 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine .

Dr. Yeap’s team concluded that certain groups of men have higher risk for CVD events. In this study, men with very low testosterone, high luteinizing hormone (LH), or very low estradiol concentrations had higher all-cause mortality. Sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) concentration was positively associated and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels were nonlinearly associated with all-cause mortality and CVD mortality.

The testosterone level below which men had higher risk of death from any cause was 7.4 nmol/L (213 ng/dL), regardless of LH concentration, the researchers concluded, writing, “This adds to information on reference ranges based on distributions of testosterone in selected samples of healthy men.”

The link between higher SHBG concentrations and higher all-cause mortality “may be related to its role as the major binding protein for sex steroids in the circulation,” the authors wrote. “We found a U-shaped association of DHT with all-cause and CVD-related mortality risks, which were higher at lower and very high DHT concentrations. Men with very low DHT concentrations also had increased risk for incident CVD events. Further investigation into potential underlying mechanisms for these associations is warranted.”
 

Rigorous Methodology Adds Value

Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, with the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, pointed out in an accompanying editorial that the study’s findings are particularly valuable because of the team’s rigorous methodology. The team measured testosterone with the gold standard, mass spectrometry, which can also measure DHT and estradiol more accurately than widely available commercial immunoassays, which “are inaccurate for measurement of these sex steroids in men, who typically have low serum concentrations of these two metabolites of testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Also, the researchers obtained raw data from the nine IPD studies and reanalyzed the combined data, which allows for more sophisticated analysis when combining data from multiple studies, Dr. Anawalt explained.

The main finding from the Yeap et al. study, he wrote, is that high testosterone concentrations at baseline were not linked with increased deaths from CVD or from all causes “but very low serum total testosterone concentrations at baseline were.

“It is tempting to hypothesize that testosterone therapy might have cardiovascular benefits solely in patients with very low concentrations of serum total testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt wrote.

He pointed out as particularly interesting the findings for DHT and estradiol.

“The finding that a low serum estradiol concentration is associated with higher all-cause mortality adds another reason (in addition to the adverse effects on body fat and bone health) to avoid aromatase inhibitors that are commonly taken by persons who use anabolic steroids,” he wrote. “The prospect of a U-shaped curve for the relationship between serum DHT and higher cardiovascular risk warrants further study.”

The work is funded by the Government of Western Australia and Lawley Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ and editorial writer’s conflicts of interest are listed in the full study.

Observational studies on red meat consumption and lifespan are prime examples of attempts to find signal in a sea of noise. 

Randomized controlled trials are the best way to sort cause from mere correlation. But these are not possible in most matters of food consumption. So, we look back and observe groups with different exposures.

My most frequent complaint about these nonrandom comparison studies has been the chance that the two groups differ in important ways, and it’s these differences — not the food in question — that account for the disparate outcomes.

But selection biases are only one issue. There is also the matter of analytic flexibility. Observational studies are born from large databases. Researchers have many choices in how to analyze all these data.

A few years ago, Brian Nosek, PhD, and colleagues elegantly showed that analytic choices can affect results. His Many Analysts, One Data Set study had little uptake in the medical community, perhaps because he studied a social science question.
 

Multiple Ways to Slice the Data

Recently, a group from McMaster University, led by Dena Zeraatkar, PhD, has confirmed the analytic choices problem, using the question of red meat consumption and mortality. 

Their idea was simple: Because there are many plausible and defensible ways to analyze a dataset, we should not choose one method; rather, we should choose thousands, combine the results, and see where the truth lies. 

You might wonder how there could be thousands of ways to analyze a dataset. I surely did. 

The answer stems from the choices that researchers face. For instance, there is the selection of eligible participants, the choice of analytic model (logistic, Poisson, etc.), and covariates for which to adjust. Think exponents when combining possible choices.

Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues are research methodologists, so, sadly, they are comfortable with the clunky name of this approach: specification curve analysis. Don’t be deterred. It means that they analyze the data in thousands of ways using computers. Each way is a specification. In the end, the specifications give rise to a curve of hazard ratios for red meat and mortality. Another name for this approach is multiverse analysis.

For their paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, aptly named “Grilling the Data,” they didn’t just conjure up the many analytic ways to study the red meat–mortality question. Instead, they used a published systematic review of 15 studies on unprocessed red meat and early mortality. The studies included in this review reported 70 unique ways to analyze the association. 
 

Is Red Meat Good or Bad?

Their first finding was that this analysis yielded widely disparate effect estimates, from 0.63 (reduced risk for early death) to 2.31 (a higher risk). The median hazard ratio was 1.14 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1.02-1.23. One might conclude from this that eating red meat is associated with a slightly higher risk for early mortality. 

Their second step was to calculate how many ways (specifications) there were to analyze the data by totaling all possible combinations of choices in the 70 ways found in the systematic review. 

They calculated a total of 10 quadrillion possible unique analyses. A quadrillion is 1 with 15 zeros. Computing power cannot handle that amount of analyses yet. So, they generated 20 random unique combinations of covariates, which narrowed the number of analyses to about 1400. About 200 of these were excluded due to implausibly wide confidence intervals. 

Voilà. They now had about 1200 different ways to analyze a dataset; they chose an NHANES longitudinal cohort study from 2007-2014. They deemed each of the more than 1200 approaches plausible because they were derived from peer-reviewed papers written by experts in epidemiology. 
 

Specification Curve Analyses Results 

Each analysis (or specification) yielded a hazard ratio for red meat exposure and death.

• The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.
• The range of hazard ratios was large. They went from 0.51 — a 49% reduced risk for early mortality — to 1.75: a 75% increase in early mortality.
• Among all analyses, 36% yielded hazard ratios above 1.0 and 64% less than 1.0.
• As for statistical significance, defined as P ≤.05, only 4% (or 48 specifications) met this threshold. Zeraatkar reminded me that this is what you’d expect if unprocessed red meat has no effect on longevity.
• Of the 48 analyses deemed statistically significant, 40 indicated that red meat consumption reduced early death and eight indicated that eating red meat led to higher mortality.
• Nearly half the analyses yielded unexciting point estimates, with hazard ratios between 0.90 and 1.10.

Paradigm Changing 

As a user of evidence, I find this a potentially paradigm-changing study. Observational studies far outnumber randomized trials. For many medical questions, observational data are all we have. 

Now think about every observational study published. The authors tell you — post hoc — which method they used to analyze the data. The key point is that it is one method. 

Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues have shown that there are thousands of plausible ways to analyze the data, and this can lead to very different findings. In the specific question of red meat and mortality, their many analyses yielded a null result. 

Now imagine other cases where the researchers did many analyses of a dataset and chose to publish only the significant ones. Observational studies are rarely preregistered, so a reader cannot know how a result would vary depending on analytic choices. A specification curve analysis of a dataset provides a much broader picture. In the case of red meat, you see some significant results, but the vast majority hover around null. 

What about the difficulty in analyzing a dataset 1000 different ways? Dr. Zeraatkar told me that it is harder than just choosing one method, but it’s not impossible. 

The main barrier to adopting this multiverse approach to data, she noted, was not the extra work but the entrenched belief among researchers that there is a best way to analyze data. 

I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices? 

Nutritional epidemiology would benefit greatly from this approach. But so would any observational study of an exposure and outcome. I suspect that the number of “positive” associations would diminish. And that would not be a bad thing.

 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Observational studies on red meat consumption and lifespan are prime examples of attempts to find signal in a sea of noise. 

Randomized controlled trials are the best way to sort cause from mere correlation. But these are not possible in most matters of food consumption. So, we look back and observe groups with different exposures.

My most frequent complaint about these nonrandom comparison studies has been the chance that the two groups differ in important ways, and it’s these differences — not the food in question — that account for the disparate outcomes.

But selection biases are only one issue. There is also the matter of analytic flexibility. Observational studies are born from large databases. Researchers have many choices in how to analyze all these data.

A few years ago, Brian Nosek, PhD, and colleagues elegantly showed that analytic choices can affect results. His Many Analysts, One Data Set study had little uptake in the medical community, perhaps because he studied a social science question.
 

Multiple Ways to Slice the Data

Recently, a group from McMaster University, led by Dena Zeraatkar, PhD, has confirmed the analytic choices problem, using the question of red meat consumption and mortality. 

Their idea was simple: Because there are many plausible and defensible ways to analyze a dataset, we should not choose one method; rather, we should choose thousands, combine the results, and see where the truth lies. 

You might wonder how there could be thousands of ways to analyze a dataset. I surely did. 

The answer stems from the choices that researchers face. For instance, there is the selection of eligible participants, the choice of analytic model (logistic, Poisson, etc.), and covariates for which to adjust. Think exponents when combining possible choices.

Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues are research methodologists, so, sadly, they are comfortable with the clunky name of this approach: specification curve analysis. Don’t be deterred. It means that they analyze the data in thousands of ways using computers. Each way is a specification. In the end, the specifications give rise to a curve of hazard ratios for red meat and mortality. Another name for this approach is multiverse analysis.

For their paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, aptly named “Grilling the Data,” they didn’t just conjure up the many analytic ways to study the red meat–mortality question. Instead, they used a published systematic review of 15 studies on unprocessed red meat and early mortality. The studies included in this review reported 70 unique ways to analyze the association. 
 

Is Red Meat Good or Bad?

Their first finding was that this analysis yielded widely disparate effect estimates, from 0.63 (reduced risk for early death) to 2.31 (a higher risk). The median hazard ratio was 1.14 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1.02-1.23. One might conclude from this that eating red meat is associated with a slightly higher risk for early mortality. 

Their second step was to calculate how many ways (specifications) there were to analyze the data by totaling all possible combinations of choices in the 70 ways found in the systematic review. 

They calculated a total of 10 quadrillion possible unique analyses. A quadrillion is 1 with 15 zeros. Computing power cannot handle that amount of analyses yet. So, they generated 20 random unique combinations of covariates, which narrowed the number of analyses to about 1400. About 200 of these were excluded due to implausibly wide confidence intervals. 

Voilà. They now had about 1200 different ways to analyze a dataset; they chose an NHANES longitudinal cohort study from 2007-2014. They deemed each of the more than 1200 approaches plausible because they were derived from peer-reviewed papers written by experts in epidemiology. 
 

Specification Curve Analyses Results 

Each analysis (or specification) yielded a hazard ratio for red meat exposure and death.

• The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.
• The range of hazard ratios was large. They went from 0.51 — a 49% reduced risk for early mortality — to 1.75: a 75% increase in early mortality.
• Among all analyses, 36% yielded hazard ratios above 1.0 and 64% less than 1.0.
• As for statistical significance, defined as P ≤.05, only 4% (or 48 specifications) met this threshold. Zeraatkar reminded me that this is what you’d expect if unprocessed red meat has no effect on longevity.
• Of the 48 analyses deemed statistically significant, 40 indicated that red meat consumption reduced early death and eight indicated that eating red meat led to higher mortality.
• Nearly half the analyses yielded unexciting point estimates, with hazard ratios between 0.90 and 1.10.

Paradigm Changing 

As a user of evidence, I find this a potentially paradigm-changing study. Observational studies far outnumber randomized trials. For many medical questions, observational data are all we have. 

Now think about every observational study published. The authors tell you — post hoc — which method they used to analyze the data. The key point is that it is one method. 

Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues have shown that there are thousands of plausible ways to analyze the data, and this can lead to very different findings. In the specific question of red meat and mortality, their many analyses yielded a null result. 

Now imagine other cases where the researchers did many analyses of a dataset and chose to publish only the significant ones. Observational studies are rarely preregistered, so a reader cannot know how a result would vary depending on analytic choices. A specification curve analysis of a dataset provides a much broader picture. In the case of red meat, you see some significant results, but the vast majority hover around null. 

What about the difficulty in analyzing a dataset 1000 different ways? Dr. Zeraatkar told me that it is harder than just choosing one method, but it’s not impossible. 

The main barrier to adopting this multiverse approach to data, she noted, was not the extra work but the entrenched belief among researchers that there is a best way to analyze data. 

I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices? 

Nutritional epidemiology would benefit greatly from this approach. But so would any observational study of an exposure and outcome. I suspect that the number of “positive” associations would diminish. And that would not be a bad thing.

 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Observational studies on red meat consumption and lifespan are prime examples of attempts to find signal in a sea of noise. 

Randomized controlled trials are the best way to sort cause from mere correlation. But these are not possible in most matters of food consumption. So, we look back and observe groups with different exposures.

My most frequent complaint about these nonrandom comparison studies has been the chance that the two groups differ in important ways, and it’s these differences — not the food in question — that account for the disparate outcomes.

But selection biases are only one issue. There is also the matter of analytic flexibility. Observational studies are born from large databases. Researchers have many choices in how to analyze all these data.

A few years ago, Brian Nosek, PhD, and colleagues elegantly showed that analytic choices can affect results. His Many Analysts, One Data Set study had little uptake in the medical community, perhaps because he studied a social science question.
 

Multiple Ways to Slice the Data

Recently, a group from McMaster University, led by Dena Zeraatkar, PhD, has confirmed the analytic choices problem, using the question of red meat consumption and mortality. 

Their idea was simple: Because there are many plausible and defensible ways to analyze a dataset, we should not choose one method; rather, we should choose thousands, combine the results, and see where the truth lies. 

You might wonder how there could be thousands of ways to analyze a dataset. I surely did. 

The answer stems from the choices that researchers face. For instance, there is the selection of eligible participants, the choice of analytic model (logistic, Poisson, etc.), and covariates for which to adjust. Think exponents when combining possible choices.

Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues are research methodologists, so, sadly, they are comfortable with the clunky name of this approach: specification curve analysis. Don’t be deterred. It means that they analyze the data in thousands of ways using computers. Each way is a specification. In the end, the specifications give rise to a curve of hazard ratios for red meat and mortality. Another name for this approach is multiverse analysis.

For their paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, aptly named “Grilling the Data,” they didn’t just conjure up the many analytic ways to study the red meat–mortality question. Instead, they used a published systematic review of 15 studies on unprocessed red meat and early mortality. The studies included in this review reported 70 unique ways to analyze the association. 
 

Is Red Meat Good or Bad?

Their first finding was that this analysis yielded widely disparate effect estimates, from 0.63 (reduced risk for early death) to 2.31 (a higher risk). The median hazard ratio was 1.14 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1.02-1.23. One might conclude from this that eating red meat is associated with a slightly higher risk for early mortality. 

Their second step was to calculate how many ways (specifications) there were to analyze the data by totaling all possible combinations of choices in the 70 ways found in the systematic review. 

They calculated a total of 10 quadrillion possible unique analyses. A quadrillion is 1 with 15 zeros. Computing power cannot handle that amount of analyses yet. So, they generated 20 random unique combinations of covariates, which narrowed the number of analyses to about 1400. About 200 of these were excluded due to implausibly wide confidence intervals. 

Voilà. They now had about 1200 different ways to analyze a dataset; they chose an NHANES longitudinal cohort study from 2007-2014. They deemed each of the more than 1200 approaches plausible because they were derived from peer-reviewed papers written by experts in epidemiology. 
 

Specification Curve Analyses Results 

Each analysis (or specification) yielded a hazard ratio for red meat exposure and death.

• The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.
• The range of hazard ratios was large. They went from 0.51 — a 49% reduced risk for early mortality — to 1.75: a 75% increase in early mortality.
• Among all analyses, 36% yielded hazard ratios above 1.0 and 64% less than 1.0.
• As for statistical significance, defined as P ≤.05, only 4% (or 48 specifications) met this threshold. Zeraatkar reminded me that this is what you’d expect if unprocessed red meat has no effect on longevity.
• Of the 48 analyses deemed statistically significant, 40 indicated that red meat consumption reduced early death and eight indicated that eating red meat led to higher mortality.
• Nearly half the analyses yielded unexciting point estimates, with hazard ratios between 0.90 and 1.10.

Paradigm Changing 

As a user of evidence, I find this a potentially paradigm-changing study. Observational studies far outnumber randomized trials. For many medical questions, observational data are all we have. 

Now think about every observational study published. The authors tell you — post hoc — which method they used to analyze the data. The key point is that it is one method. 

Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues have shown that there are thousands of plausible ways to analyze the data, and this can lead to very different findings. In the specific question of red meat and mortality, their many analyses yielded a null result. 

Now imagine other cases where the researchers did many analyses of a dataset and chose to publish only the significant ones. Observational studies are rarely preregistered, so a reader cannot know how a result would vary depending on analytic choices. A specification curve analysis of a dataset provides a much broader picture. In the case of red meat, you see some significant results, but the vast majority hover around null. 

What about the difficulty in analyzing a dataset 1000 different ways? Dr. Zeraatkar told me that it is harder than just choosing one method, but it’s not impossible. 

The main barrier to adopting this multiverse approach to data, she noted, was not the extra work but the entrenched belief among researchers that there is a best way to analyze data. 

I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices? 

Nutritional epidemiology would benefit greatly from this approach. But so would any observational study of an exposure and outcome. I suspect that the number of “positive” associations would diminish. And that would not be a bad thing.

 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — New insights into colchicine’s disruption of the pathway that contributes to arterial inflammation and new clinical studies of the drug could pave the way toward greater use of the anti-inflammatory drug in patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), researchers said at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.

Colchicine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2023 in a once-daily 0.5-mg formulation under the brand name Lodoco to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for CVD. The Lodoco formulation is slightly smaller than the 0.6-mg formulation that’s taken twice daily for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute gout flares.

In a presentation at the conference, Binita Shah, MD, one of the principal investigators in trials of Lodoco, explained how the inflammatory pathway contributes to atherosclerosis and provided an update on how colchicine disrupts the pathway. Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine at New York University in New York City and director of research at NYU Langone Health Interventional Cardiology.

“Colchicine dampens inflammatory markers on neutrophils so that they are less likely to be attracted to inflamed or injured endothelium, which would be the site of where plaque is building up or where the plaque has ruptured in the setting of a heart attack,” Shah told this news organization after her presentation.

The Inflammatory Pathway

Dr. Shah explained that normal coronary endothelium resists adhesion by circulating leukocytes, but inflamed or injured coronary endothelium attracts those neutrophils via two types of selectins: L-selectins on neutrophils and E-selectins on endothelial cells. Those neutrophils then release inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß), which then triggers production of IL-6 and, subsequently, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), which contributes to plaque formation, she said.

“Colchicine affects these pathways with a balance for safety and effect on clinical outcomes, particularly to reduce recurrent myocardial infarction [MI],” Dr. Shah said during her presentation. 

Results from the CIRT trial demonstrated that methotrexate is ineffective in blocking the adenosine-mediated anti-inflammatory pathway, Dr. Shah said, so focusing on the IL-1ß–IL-6–hsCRP pathway, which is known to work based on the results of the CANTOS trial, could pay dividends.

“This is where colchicine can potentially play a role,” she said. 

Dr. Shah cited a secondary analysis of the CANTOS trial in which the magnitude of hsCRP reduction correlated with a reduction in MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary analysis showed that patients who received canakinumab and achieved hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L had a nonsignificant 5% lower risk and those who reached < 2 mg/L had a statistically significant 25% lower risk than those who received placebo.

The COPE-PCI Pilot trial demonstrated the benefit of targeting the interleukin pathways, she noted. 

Further clarification of the role of colchicine in managing patients with acute coronary syndrome may come from two other randomized trials now underway, Dr. Shah said: POPCORN is evaluating colchicine to reduce MACE after noncardiac surgery, and CLEAR SYNERGY is evaluating the best timing for colchicine therapy after an acute MI.

Dr. Shah presented preliminary data from her group from a neutrophil biomarker substudy of CLEAR SYNERGY that isolated neutrophils from patients who had an acute MI. “We treated them with various doses of colchicine and showed that the interaction between those treated neutrophils [and] the endothelial cells were a lot lower; they were less sticky to endothelial cells as colchicine was administered,” she said in her presentation. She added that colchicine also reduced neutrophil chemotaxis and neutrophil activation and potentially inhibited inflammasomes, decreasing IL-1ß production.

What’s more, colchicine has been shown to not affect platelets alone but rather platelets at the site of inflammation or plaque rupture, Dr. Shah added. “At currently used doses, colchicine does not inhibit platelet activity [by] itself, so we’ve never seen increased bleeding events, but it will dampen neutrophils’ ability to latch onto a platelet that could contribute to a clot,” she later told this news organization.

“There are multiple studies, both retrospective studies in gout cohorts as well as prospective studies in the cardiovascular cohort, that all show consistently one thing, which is that colchicine continues to reduce the risk of having a recurrent MI in patients who either have cardiovascular disease or are at high risk of having cardiovascular disease,” she said.

“I think that’s very helpful to know that it’s not just one study — it’s not just a fluke, potentially a play of chance — but multiple studies consistently showing the same thing: That there’s a reduced risk of acute MI.”
 

Slow to Embrace Colchicine

Despite this evidence, cardiologists and rheumatologists have been slow to embrace colchicine for patients at risk for cardiovascular events, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone. “What [Shah] really highlighted was that for a number of years now, we’ve had several clinical trials showing the benefit of low-dose colchicine to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and yet despite these and that there’s now an indication to use low-dose colchicine to reduce cardiovascular disease, we’re still struggling for this medication to be taken up by the general cardiology community to treat high-risk patients.

NYU Langone

“There’s still some work to do to prove that we need to break those barriers,” Dr. Garshick added. Some of the confusion surrounding the use of colchicine for ASCVD may be attributed to the 0.5-mg dose approved for CVD as opposed to the long-approved 0.6-mg dose for gout, he said. “People are generally confused: Is it OK to use the 0.6-mg dose?” Dr. Garshick said.

Potential gastrointestinal side effects may be another concerning factor, although, he added, “we didn’t see any major complications.” Another issue could be polypharmacy in many of these patients, he said.

Dr. Garshick concurred with Shah that the existing evidence supporting the use of colchicine to reduce risk for cardiovascular events is strong, but more will come out. “I think there’s going to be evolving data supporting it,” he said.

Dr. Shah disclosed financial relationships with Philips Volcano and Novo Nordisk. She is a principal investigator of the CLEAR SYNERGY biomarker substudy and the POPCORN trial. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

NEW YORK — New insights into colchicine’s disruption of the pathway that contributes to arterial inflammation and new clinical studies of the drug could pave the way toward greater use of the anti-inflammatory drug in patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), researchers said at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.

Colchicine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2023 in a once-daily 0.5-mg formulation under the brand name Lodoco to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for CVD. The Lodoco formulation is slightly smaller than the 0.6-mg formulation that’s taken twice daily for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute gout flares.

In a presentation at the conference, Binita Shah, MD, one of the principal investigators in trials of Lodoco, explained how the inflammatory pathway contributes to atherosclerosis and provided an update on how colchicine disrupts the pathway. Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine at New York University in New York City and director of research at NYU Langone Health Interventional Cardiology.

“Colchicine dampens inflammatory markers on neutrophils so that they are less likely to be attracted to inflamed or injured endothelium, which would be the site of where plaque is building up or where the plaque has ruptured in the setting of a heart attack,” Shah told this news organization after her presentation.

The Inflammatory Pathway

Dr. Shah explained that normal coronary endothelium resists adhesion by circulating leukocytes, but inflamed or injured coronary endothelium attracts those neutrophils via two types of selectins: L-selectins on neutrophils and E-selectins on endothelial cells. Those neutrophils then release inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß), which then triggers production of IL-6 and, subsequently, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), which contributes to plaque formation, she said.

“Colchicine affects these pathways with a balance for safety and effect on clinical outcomes, particularly to reduce recurrent myocardial infarction [MI],” Dr. Shah said during her presentation. 

Results from the CIRT trial demonstrated that methotrexate is ineffective in blocking the adenosine-mediated anti-inflammatory pathway, Dr. Shah said, so focusing on the IL-1ß–IL-6–hsCRP pathway, which is known to work based on the results of the CANTOS trial, could pay dividends.

“This is where colchicine can potentially play a role,” she said. 

Dr. Shah cited a secondary analysis of the CANTOS trial in which the magnitude of hsCRP reduction correlated with a reduction in MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary analysis showed that patients who received canakinumab and achieved hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L had a nonsignificant 5% lower risk and those who reached < 2 mg/L had a statistically significant 25% lower risk than those who received placebo.

The COPE-PCI Pilot trial demonstrated the benefit of targeting the interleukin pathways, she noted. 

Further clarification of the role of colchicine in managing patients with acute coronary syndrome may come from two other randomized trials now underway, Dr. Shah said: POPCORN is evaluating colchicine to reduce MACE after noncardiac surgery, and CLEAR SYNERGY is evaluating the best timing for colchicine therapy after an acute MI.

Dr. Shah presented preliminary data from her group from a neutrophil biomarker substudy of CLEAR SYNERGY that isolated neutrophils from patients who had an acute MI. “We treated them with various doses of colchicine and showed that the interaction between those treated neutrophils [and] the endothelial cells were a lot lower; they were less sticky to endothelial cells as colchicine was administered,” she said in her presentation. She added that colchicine also reduced neutrophil chemotaxis and neutrophil activation and potentially inhibited inflammasomes, decreasing IL-1ß production.

What’s more, colchicine has been shown to not affect platelets alone but rather platelets at the site of inflammation or plaque rupture, Dr. Shah added. “At currently used doses, colchicine does not inhibit platelet activity [by] itself, so we’ve never seen increased bleeding events, but it will dampen neutrophils’ ability to latch onto a platelet that could contribute to a clot,” she later told this news organization.

“There are multiple studies, both retrospective studies in gout cohorts as well as prospective studies in the cardiovascular cohort, that all show consistently one thing, which is that colchicine continues to reduce the risk of having a recurrent MI in patients who either have cardiovascular disease or are at high risk of having cardiovascular disease,” she said.

“I think that’s very helpful to know that it’s not just one study — it’s not just a fluke, potentially a play of chance — but multiple studies consistently showing the same thing: That there’s a reduced risk of acute MI.”
 

Slow to Embrace Colchicine

Despite this evidence, cardiologists and rheumatologists have been slow to embrace colchicine for patients at risk for cardiovascular events, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone. “What [Shah] really highlighted was that for a number of years now, we’ve had several clinical trials showing the benefit of low-dose colchicine to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and yet despite these and that there’s now an indication to use low-dose colchicine to reduce cardiovascular disease, we’re still struggling for this medication to be taken up by the general cardiology community to treat high-risk patients.

NYU Langone

“There’s still some work to do to prove that we need to break those barriers,” Dr. Garshick added. Some of the confusion surrounding the use of colchicine for ASCVD may be attributed to the 0.5-mg dose approved for CVD as opposed to the long-approved 0.6-mg dose for gout, he said. “People are generally confused: Is it OK to use the 0.6-mg dose?” Dr. Garshick said.

Potential gastrointestinal side effects may be another concerning factor, although, he added, “we didn’t see any major complications.” Another issue could be polypharmacy in many of these patients, he said.

Dr. Garshick concurred with Shah that the existing evidence supporting the use of colchicine to reduce risk for cardiovascular events is strong, but more will come out. “I think there’s going to be evolving data supporting it,” he said.

Dr. Shah disclosed financial relationships with Philips Volcano and Novo Nordisk. She is a principal investigator of the CLEAR SYNERGY biomarker substudy and the POPCORN trial. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

NEW YORK — New insights into colchicine’s disruption of the pathway that contributes to arterial inflammation and new clinical studies of the drug could pave the way toward greater use of the anti-inflammatory drug in patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), researchers said at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.

Colchicine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2023 in a once-daily 0.5-mg formulation under the brand name Lodoco to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for CVD. The Lodoco formulation is slightly smaller than the 0.6-mg formulation that’s taken twice daily for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute gout flares.

In a presentation at the conference, Binita Shah, MD, one of the principal investigators in trials of Lodoco, explained how the inflammatory pathway contributes to atherosclerosis and provided an update on how colchicine disrupts the pathway. Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine at New York University in New York City and director of research at NYU Langone Health Interventional Cardiology.

“Colchicine dampens inflammatory markers on neutrophils so that they are less likely to be attracted to inflamed or injured endothelium, which would be the site of where plaque is building up or where the plaque has ruptured in the setting of a heart attack,” Shah told this news organization after her presentation.

The Inflammatory Pathway

Dr. Shah explained that normal coronary endothelium resists adhesion by circulating leukocytes, but inflamed or injured coronary endothelium attracts those neutrophils via two types of selectins: L-selectins on neutrophils and E-selectins on endothelial cells. Those neutrophils then release inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß), which then triggers production of IL-6 and, subsequently, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), which contributes to plaque formation, she said.

“Colchicine affects these pathways with a balance for safety and effect on clinical outcomes, particularly to reduce recurrent myocardial infarction [MI],” Dr. Shah said during her presentation. 

Results from the CIRT trial demonstrated that methotrexate is ineffective in blocking the adenosine-mediated anti-inflammatory pathway, Dr. Shah said, so focusing on the IL-1ß–IL-6–hsCRP pathway, which is known to work based on the results of the CANTOS trial, could pay dividends.

“This is where colchicine can potentially play a role,” she said. 

Dr. Shah cited a secondary analysis of the CANTOS trial in which the magnitude of hsCRP reduction correlated with a reduction in MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary analysis showed that patients who received canakinumab and achieved hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L had a nonsignificant 5% lower risk and those who reached < 2 mg/L had a statistically significant 25% lower risk than those who received placebo.

The COPE-PCI Pilot trial demonstrated the benefit of targeting the interleukin pathways, she noted. 

Further clarification of the role of colchicine in managing patients with acute coronary syndrome may come from two other randomized trials now underway, Dr. Shah said: POPCORN is evaluating colchicine to reduce MACE after noncardiac surgery, and CLEAR SYNERGY is evaluating the best timing for colchicine therapy after an acute MI.

Dr. Shah presented preliminary data from her group from a neutrophil biomarker substudy of CLEAR SYNERGY that isolated neutrophils from patients who had an acute MI. “We treated them with various doses of colchicine and showed that the interaction between those treated neutrophils [and] the endothelial cells were a lot lower; they were less sticky to endothelial cells as colchicine was administered,” she said in her presentation. She added that colchicine also reduced neutrophil chemotaxis and neutrophil activation and potentially inhibited inflammasomes, decreasing IL-1ß production.

What’s more, colchicine has been shown to not affect platelets alone but rather platelets at the site of inflammation or plaque rupture, Dr. Shah added. “At currently used doses, colchicine does not inhibit platelet activity [by] itself, so we’ve never seen increased bleeding events, but it will dampen neutrophils’ ability to latch onto a platelet that could contribute to a clot,” she later told this news organization.

“There are multiple studies, both retrospective studies in gout cohorts as well as prospective studies in the cardiovascular cohort, that all show consistently one thing, which is that colchicine continues to reduce the risk of having a recurrent MI in patients who either have cardiovascular disease or are at high risk of having cardiovascular disease,” she said.

“I think that’s very helpful to know that it’s not just one study — it’s not just a fluke, potentially a play of chance — but multiple studies consistently showing the same thing: That there’s a reduced risk of acute MI.”
 

Slow to Embrace Colchicine

Despite this evidence, cardiologists and rheumatologists have been slow to embrace colchicine for patients at risk for cardiovascular events, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone. “What [Shah] really highlighted was that for a number of years now, we’ve had several clinical trials showing the benefit of low-dose colchicine to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and yet despite these and that there’s now an indication to use low-dose colchicine to reduce cardiovascular disease, we’re still struggling for this medication to be taken up by the general cardiology community to treat high-risk patients.

NYU Langone

“There’s still some work to do to prove that we need to break those barriers,” Dr. Garshick added. Some of the confusion surrounding the use of colchicine for ASCVD may be attributed to the 0.5-mg dose approved for CVD as opposed to the long-approved 0.6-mg dose for gout, he said. “People are generally confused: Is it OK to use the 0.6-mg dose?” Dr. Garshick said.

Potential gastrointestinal side effects may be another concerning factor, although, he added, “we didn’t see any major complications.” Another issue could be polypharmacy in many of these patients, he said.

Dr. Garshick concurred with Shah that the existing evidence supporting the use of colchicine to reduce risk for cardiovascular events is strong, but more will come out. “I think there’s going to be evolving data supporting it,” he said.

Dr. Shah disclosed financial relationships with Philips Volcano and Novo Nordisk. She is a principal investigator of the CLEAR SYNERGY biomarker substudy and the POPCORN trial. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .