Among people with HIV (PWH), coinfection with hepatitis C (HCV) is associated with an 85% increase in risk of myocardial infarction (MI) every decade, a new analysis suggests.
By contrast, the risk increases by 30% every 10 years among PWH without HCV infection.
“There is other evidence that suggests people with HIV and HCV have a greater burden of negative health outcomes,” senior author Keri N. Althoff, PhD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. “But the magnitude of ‘greater’ was bigger than I expected.”
“Understanding the difference HCV can make in the risk of MI with increasing age among those with – compared to without – HCV is an important step for understanding additional potential benefits of HCV treatment (among PWH),” she said.
The amplified risk with age occurred even though, overall, the association between HCV coinfection and increased risk of type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI) was not significant, the analysis showed.
The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
How age counts
Dr. Althoff and colleagues analyzed data from 23,361 PWH aged 40-79 who had initiated antiretroviral therapy between 2000 and 2017. The primary outcome was T1MI.
A total of 4,677 participants (20%) had HCV. Eighty-nine T1MIs occurred among PWH with HCV (1.9%) vs. 314 among PWH without HCV (1.7%). In adjusted analyses, HCV was not associated with increased T1MI risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98).
However, the risk of T1MI increased with age and was augmented in those with HCV (aHR per 10-year increase in age, 1.85) vs. those without HCV (aHR, 1.30).
Specifically, compared with those without HCV, the estimated T1MI risk was 17% higher among 50- to 59-year-olds with HCV and 77% higher among those 60 and older; neither association was statistically significant, although the authors suggest this probably was because of the smaller number of participants in the older age categories.
Even without HCV, the risk of T1MI increased in participants who had traditional risk factors. The risk was significantly higher among PWH aged 40-49 with diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, protease inhibitor (PI) use, and smoking, whereas among PWH aged 50-59, the T1MI risk was significantly greater among those with hypertension, PI use, and smoking.
Among those aged 60 or older, hypertension and low CD4 counts were associated with a significantly increased T1MI risk.
“Clinicians providing health care to people with HIV should know their patients’ HCV status,” Dr. Althoff said, “and provide support regarding HCV treatment and ways to reduce their cardiovascular risk, including smoking cessation, reaching and maintaining a healthy BMI, and substance use treatment.”
Truly additive?
American Heart Association expert volunteer Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria NY, said the increased T1MI risk with coinfection “makes sense” because both HIV and HCV are linked to inflammation.
However, she said in an interview, “the fact that the authors didn’t control for other, more traditional heart attack risk factors is a limitation. I would like to see a study that takes other risk factors into consideration to see if HCV is truly additive.”
Meanwhile, like Dr. Althoff, she said, “Clinicians should be taking a careful history that includes chronic infections as well as traditional heart risk factors.”
Additional studies are needed, Dr. Althoff agreed. “There are two paths we are keenly interested in pursuing. The first is understanding how metabolic risk factors for MI change after HCV treatment. We are working on this.”
“Ultimately,” she said, “we want to compare MI risk in people with HIV who had successful HCV treatment to those who have not had successful HCV treatment.”
In their current study, they had nearly 2 decades of follow-up, she noted. “Although we don’t need to wait that long, we would like to have close to a decade of potential follow-up time (since 2016, when sofosbuvir/velpatasvir became available) so that we have a large enough sample size to observe a sufficient number of MIs within the first 5 years after successful HCV treatment.”
No commercial funding or relevant disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among people with HIV (PWH), coinfection with hepatitis C (HCV) is associated with an 85% increase in risk of myocardial infarction (MI) every decade, a new analysis suggests.
By contrast, the risk increases by 30% every 10 years among PWH without HCV infection.
“There is other evidence that suggests people with HIV and HCV have a greater burden of negative health outcomes,” senior author Keri N. Althoff, PhD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. “But the magnitude of ‘greater’ was bigger than I expected.”
“Understanding the difference HCV can make in the risk of MI with increasing age among those with – compared to without – HCV is an important step for understanding additional potential benefits of HCV treatment (among PWH),” she said.
The amplified risk with age occurred even though, overall, the association between HCV coinfection and increased risk of type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI) was not significant, the analysis showed.
The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
How age counts
Dr. Althoff and colleagues analyzed data from 23,361 PWH aged 40-79 who had initiated antiretroviral therapy between 2000 and 2017. The primary outcome was T1MI.
A total of 4,677 participants (20%) had HCV. Eighty-nine T1MIs occurred among PWH with HCV (1.9%) vs. 314 among PWH without HCV (1.7%). In adjusted analyses, HCV was not associated with increased T1MI risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98).
However, the risk of T1MI increased with age and was augmented in those with HCV (aHR per 10-year increase in age, 1.85) vs. those without HCV (aHR, 1.30).
Specifically, compared with those without HCV, the estimated T1MI risk was 17% higher among 50- to 59-year-olds with HCV and 77% higher among those 60 and older; neither association was statistically significant, although the authors suggest this probably was because of the smaller number of participants in the older age categories.
Even without HCV, the risk of T1MI increased in participants who had traditional risk factors. The risk was significantly higher among PWH aged 40-49 with diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, protease inhibitor (PI) use, and smoking, whereas among PWH aged 50-59, the T1MI risk was significantly greater among those with hypertension, PI use, and smoking.
Among those aged 60 or older, hypertension and low CD4 counts were associated with a significantly increased T1MI risk.
“Clinicians providing health care to people with HIV should know their patients’ HCV status,” Dr. Althoff said, “and provide support regarding HCV treatment and ways to reduce their cardiovascular risk, including smoking cessation, reaching and maintaining a healthy BMI, and substance use treatment.”
Truly additive?
American Heart Association expert volunteer Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria NY, said the increased T1MI risk with coinfection “makes sense” because both HIV and HCV are linked to inflammation.
However, she said in an interview, “the fact that the authors didn’t control for other, more traditional heart attack risk factors is a limitation. I would like to see a study that takes other risk factors into consideration to see if HCV is truly additive.”
Meanwhile, like Dr. Althoff, she said, “Clinicians should be taking a careful history that includes chronic infections as well as traditional heart risk factors.”
Additional studies are needed, Dr. Althoff agreed. “There are two paths we are keenly interested in pursuing. The first is understanding how metabolic risk factors for MI change after HCV treatment. We are working on this.”
“Ultimately,” she said, “we want to compare MI risk in people with HIV who had successful HCV treatment to those who have not had successful HCV treatment.”
In their current study, they had nearly 2 decades of follow-up, she noted. “Although we don’t need to wait that long, we would like to have close to a decade of potential follow-up time (since 2016, when sofosbuvir/velpatasvir became available) so that we have a large enough sample size to observe a sufficient number of MIs within the first 5 years after successful HCV treatment.”
No commercial funding or relevant disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among people with HIV (PWH), coinfection with hepatitis C (HCV) is associated with an 85% increase in risk of myocardial infarction (MI) every decade, a new analysis suggests.
By contrast, the risk increases by 30% every 10 years among PWH without HCV infection.
“There is other evidence that suggests people with HIV and HCV have a greater burden of negative health outcomes,” senior author Keri N. Althoff, PhD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. “But the magnitude of ‘greater’ was bigger than I expected.”
“Understanding the difference HCV can make in the risk of MI with increasing age among those with – compared to without – HCV is an important step for understanding additional potential benefits of HCV treatment (among PWH),” she said.
The amplified risk with age occurred even though, overall, the association between HCV coinfection and increased risk of type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI) was not significant, the analysis showed.
The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
How age counts
Dr. Althoff and colleagues analyzed data from 23,361 PWH aged 40-79 who had initiated antiretroviral therapy between 2000 and 2017. The primary outcome was T1MI.
A total of 4,677 participants (20%) had HCV. Eighty-nine T1MIs occurred among PWH with HCV (1.9%) vs. 314 among PWH without HCV (1.7%). In adjusted analyses, HCV was not associated with increased T1MI risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98).
However, the risk of T1MI increased with age and was augmented in those with HCV (aHR per 10-year increase in age, 1.85) vs. those without HCV (aHR, 1.30).
Specifically, compared with those without HCV, the estimated T1MI risk was 17% higher among 50- to 59-year-olds with HCV and 77% higher among those 60 and older; neither association was statistically significant, although the authors suggest this probably was because of the smaller number of participants in the older age categories.
Even without HCV, the risk of T1MI increased in participants who had traditional risk factors. The risk was significantly higher among PWH aged 40-49 with diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, protease inhibitor (PI) use, and smoking, whereas among PWH aged 50-59, the T1MI risk was significantly greater among those with hypertension, PI use, and smoking.
Among those aged 60 or older, hypertension and low CD4 counts were associated with a significantly increased T1MI risk.
“Clinicians providing health care to people with HIV should know their patients’ HCV status,” Dr. Althoff said, “and provide support regarding HCV treatment and ways to reduce their cardiovascular risk, including smoking cessation, reaching and maintaining a healthy BMI, and substance use treatment.”
Truly additive?
American Heart Association expert volunteer Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria NY, said the increased T1MI risk with coinfection “makes sense” because both HIV and HCV are linked to inflammation.
However, she said in an interview, “the fact that the authors didn’t control for other, more traditional heart attack risk factors is a limitation. I would like to see a study that takes other risk factors into consideration to see if HCV is truly additive.”
Meanwhile, like Dr. Althoff, she said, “Clinicians should be taking a careful history that includes chronic infections as well as traditional heart risk factors.”
Additional studies are needed, Dr. Althoff agreed. “There are two paths we are keenly interested in pursuing. The first is understanding how metabolic risk factors for MI change after HCV treatment. We are working on this.”
“Ultimately,” she said, “we want to compare MI risk in people with HIV who had successful HCV treatment to those who have not had successful HCV treatment.”
In their current study, they had nearly 2 decades of follow-up, she noted. “Although we don’t need to wait that long, we would like to have close to a decade of potential follow-up time (since 2016, when sofosbuvir/velpatasvir became available) so that we have a large enough sample size to observe a sufficient number of MIs within the first 5 years after successful HCV treatment.”
No commercial funding or relevant disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Among animal protein foods, low-fat dairy consumption may minimize the risk of developing type 2 diabetes while red meat raises that risk, a new analysis finds.
“A plant-based dietary pattern with limited intake of meat, moderate intake of fish, eggs, and full-fat dairy, and habitual consumption of yogurt, milk, or low-fat dairy, might represent the most feasible, sustainable, and successful population strategy to optimize the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” lead author Annalisa Giosuè, MD, of the University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, told this news organization.
baibaz/iStock/Getty Images
She presented the findings from an umbrella review of 13 dose-response meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The study is believed to be the first comprehensive overview of the available evidence from all published meta-analyses on the relationship between well-defined amounts of animal-origin foods and the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Giosuè and colleagues focused on animal-based foods because they represent a gap in most guidelines for type 2 diabetes prevention, she explained.
“The existing evidence and dietary recommendations for type 2 diabetes prevention are mainly based on the appropriate consumption of plant foods: high amounts of the fiber-rich ones and low consumption of the refined ones as well as those rich in free sugars. And also on the adequate choice among fat sources – reduction of saturated fat sources like butter and cream and replacement with plant-based poly- and monounsaturated fat sources like nontropical vegetable oils. But not on the most suitable choices among different animal foods for the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” she explained.
The new findings are in line with the Mediterranean diet in that, while plant based, it also limits red-meat consumption, but not all animal-based foods, and has consistently been associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes. Vegetarian diets have also been associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, but far less evidence is available for that, she said.
Asked for comment, session moderator Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the department of molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, said: “Decreasing intake of red and processed meat is already a strong recommendation, and these data support that. You have to make choices for and against [certain] foods. So, if you decide to eat less red meat, then the question is what do you eat instead? This study shows that specifically other animal products, like dairy and ... fish or white meat sources ... are healthy among the animal-based foods. But you could also obviously look at plant-based foods as protein sources as well.”
And Dr. Schulze noted that the data suggest another dimension to type 2 diabetes prevention beyond simply focusing on weight loss.
“You can achieve weight loss with very different diets. Diet quality plays an important role. These data support that if you look at diabetes prevention, then you would focus on people with high intakes of specific animal-based foods, besides looking at overweight and obesity. Then you could intervene to reduce this intake, with potential substitutions with other animal foods like fish or white meat, or plant-based sources of proteins.”
Red meat damages, dairy protects
The 13 meta-analyses included 175 summary risk ratios for type 2 diabetes incidence for the consumption of total meat, red meat, white meat, processed meats, fish, total dairy, full-fat dairy, low-fat dairy, milk, cheese, yogurt, or eggs.
Significant increases in the risk of developing type 2 diabetes were found for consumption of 100 g/day of total meat (SRR, 1.20; 20% increase) and red meat (SRR, 1.22, 22% increase) and with 50 g/day of processed meats (SRR, 1.30; 30% increase). A borderline increased risk was also seen for 50 g/day of white meat (SRR, 1.04; 4% increase).
The opposite was found for dairy foods. Inverse associations for type 2 diabetes development were found for an intake of 200 g/day of total dairy (SRR, 0.95; 5% reduction), low-fat dairy (SRR, 0.96; 4% reduction), milk (SRR, 0.90; 10% reduction), and for 100 g/day of yogurt (SRR, 0.94, 6% reduction).
Neutral (nonsignificant) effects were found for 200 g/day of full-fat dairy (SRR, 0.98) and for 30 g/day of cheese (SRR, 0.97). Fish consumption also had a neutral association with type 2 diabetes risk (SRR, 1.04 for 100 g/day) as did one egg per day (SRR, 1.07), but evidence quality was low.
And, Dr. Giosuè noted during her presentation, these relationships could change with alterations in the amounts consumed.
Dr. Schulze commented: “Fish is more clearly related to reduced cardiovascular risk than for preventing type 2 diabetes, where we’ve had mixed results. They might not always be the same.”
What are the mechanisms?
The reasons for these positive and negative associations aren’t entirely clear, but Dr. Giosuè noted that dairy products contain several nutrients, vitamins, and other components, such as calcium and vitamin D, that have potential beneficial effects on glucose metabolism.
In particular, she said, “Whey proteins in milk have a well-known beneficial effect on the regulation of the rise of glucose levels in the blood after meals, and also on the control of appetite and body weight.”
Moreover, probiotics found in yogurt have been linked to protective effects against weight gain and obesity, which “may in part [explain] the beneficial role of yogurt in type 2 diabetes prevention.”
Meat, in contrast, is full of cholesterol, saturated fatty acids, and heme iron, which can promote subclinical inflammation and oxidative stress, which may in turn, affect insulin sensitivity, Dr. Giosuè explained. What’s more, “processed meats also contain nitrates, nitrites, and sodium that can contribute to pancreatic cell damage and vascular dysfunction, thus affecting insulin sensitivity.”
And white meat (poultry) has a lower fat content than red meats such as beef, lamb, and pork, as well as a more favorable fatty acid profile and a lower heme-iron content, she said in an interview.
What about vegan diets? The devil is in the details
Asked about the relative health benefits of diets that completely eliminate animal-based foods, Dr. Giosuè replied: “What is important to keep in mind when hearing about the potential of vegan diets to prevent, or manage, or induce the remission of type 2 diabetes, is that the inclusion in the diet of solely foods of plant origin does not mean ‘automatically’ to eat only foods that are good for diabetes prevention.”
“Just like the exclusion of all foods of animal origin is not equivalent to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes ... Solid evidence has demonstrated that plant foods which are refined and/or rich in free sugars like white bread, biscuits, and sweetened beverages are as harmful as red and processed meats for diabetes incidence and progression.”
Dr. Giosuè and Dr. Schulze have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Among animal protein foods, low-fat dairy consumption may minimize the risk of developing type 2 diabetes while red meat raises that risk, a new analysis finds.
“A plant-based dietary pattern with limited intake of meat, moderate intake of fish, eggs, and full-fat dairy, and habitual consumption of yogurt, milk, or low-fat dairy, might represent the most feasible, sustainable, and successful population strategy to optimize the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” lead author Annalisa Giosuè, MD, of the University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, told this news organization.
baibaz/iStock/Getty Images
She presented the findings from an umbrella review of 13 dose-response meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The study is believed to be the first comprehensive overview of the available evidence from all published meta-analyses on the relationship between well-defined amounts of animal-origin foods and the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Giosuè and colleagues focused on animal-based foods because they represent a gap in most guidelines for type 2 diabetes prevention, she explained.
“The existing evidence and dietary recommendations for type 2 diabetes prevention are mainly based on the appropriate consumption of plant foods: high amounts of the fiber-rich ones and low consumption of the refined ones as well as those rich in free sugars. And also on the adequate choice among fat sources – reduction of saturated fat sources like butter and cream and replacement with plant-based poly- and monounsaturated fat sources like nontropical vegetable oils. But not on the most suitable choices among different animal foods for the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” she explained.
The new findings are in line with the Mediterranean diet in that, while plant based, it also limits red-meat consumption, but not all animal-based foods, and has consistently been associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes. Vegetarian diets have also been associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, but far less evidence is available for that, she said.
Asked for comment, session moderator Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the department of molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, said: “Decreasing intake of red and processed meat is already a strong recommendation, and these data support that. You have to make choices for and against [certain] foods. So, if you decide to eat less red meat, then the question is what do you eat instead? This study shows that specifically other animal products, like dairy and ... fish or white meat sources ... are healthy among the animal-based foods. But you could also obviously look at plant-based foods as protein sources as well.”
And Dr. Schulze noted that the data suggest another dimension to type 2 diabetes prevention beyond simply focusing on weight loss.
“You can achieve weight loss with very different diets. Diet quality plays an important role. These data support that if you look at diabetes prevention, then you would focus on people with high intakes of specific animal-based foods, besides looking at overweight and obesity. Then you could intervene to reduce this intake, with potential substitutions with other animal foods like fish or white meat, or plant-based sources of proteins.”
Red meat damages, dairy protects
The 13 meta-analyses included 175 summary risk ratios for type 2 diabetes incidence for the consumption of total meat, red meat, white meat, processed meats, fish, total dairy, full-fat dairy, low-fat dairy, milk, cheese, yogurt, or eggs.
Significant increases in the risk of developing type 2 diabetes were found for consumption of 100 g/day of total meat (SRR, 1.20; 20% increase) and red meat (SRR, 1.22, 22% increase) and with 50 g/day of processed meats (SRR, 1.30; 30% increase). A borderline increased risk was also seen for 50 g/day of white meat (SRR, 1.04; 4% increase).
The opposite was found for dairy foods. Inverse associations for type 2 diabetes development were found for an intake of 200 g/day of total dairy (SRR, 0.95; 5% reduction), low-fat dairy (SRR, 0.96; 4% reduction), milk (SRR, 0.90; 10% reduction), and for 100 g/day of yogurt (SRR, 0.94, 6% reduction).
Neutral (nonsignificant) effects were found for 200 g/day of full-fat dairy (SRR, 0.98) and for 30 g/day of cheese (SRR, 0.97). Fish consumption also had a neutral association with type 2 diabetes risk (SRR, 1.04 for 100 g/day) as did one egg per day (SRR, 1.07), but evidence quality was low.
And, Dr. Giosuè noted during her presentation, these relationships could change with alterations in the amounts consumed.
Dr. Schulze commented: “Fish is more clearly related to reduced cardiovascular risk than for preventing type 2 diabetes, where we’ve had mixed results. They might not always be the same.”
What are the mechanisms?
The reasons for these positive and negative associations aren’t entirely clear, but Dr. Giosuè noted that dairy products contain several nutrients, vitamins, and other components, such as calcium and vitamin D, that have potential beneficial effects on glucose metabolism.
In particular, she said, “Whey proteins in milk have a well-known beneficial effect on the regulation of the rise of glucose levels in the blood after meals, and also on the control of appetite and body weight.”
Moreover, probiotics found in yogurt have been linked to protective effects against weight gain and obesity, which “may in part [explain] the beneficial role of yogurt in type 2 diabetes prevention.”
Meat, in contrast, is full of cholesterol, saturated fatty acids, and heme iron, which can promote subclinical inflammation and oxidative stress, which may in turn, affect insulin sensitivity, Dr. Giosuè explained. What’s more, “processed meats also contain nitrates, nitrites, and sodium that can contribute to pancreatic cell damage and vascular dysfunction, thus affecting insulin sensitivity.”
And white meat (poultry) has a lower fat content than red meats such as beef, lamb, and pork, as well as a more favorable fatty acid profile and a lower heme-iron content, she said in an interview.
What about vegan diets? The devil is in the details
Asked about the relative health benefits of diets that completely eliminate animal-based foods, Dr. Giosuè replied: “What is important to keep in mind when hearing about the potential of vegan diets to prevent, or manage, or induce the remission of type 2 diabetes, is that the inclusion in the diet of solely foods of plant origin does not mean ‘automatically’ to eat only foods that are good for diabetes prevention.”
“Just like the exclusion of all foods of animal origin is not equivalent to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes ... Solid evidence has demonstrated that plant foods which are refined and/or rich in free sugars like white bread, biscuits, and sweetened beverages are as harmful as red and processed meats for diabetes incidence and progression.”
Dr. Giosuè and Dr. Schulze have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Among animal protein foods, low-fat dairy consumption may minimize the risk of developing type 2 diabetes while red meat raises that risk, a new analysis finds.
“A plant-based dietary pattern with limited intake of meat, moderate intake of fish, eggs, and full-fat dairy, and habitual consumption of yogurt, milk, or low-fat dairy, might represent the most feasible, sustainable, and successful population strategy to optimize the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” lead author Annalisa Giosuè, MD, of the University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, told this news organization.
baibaz/iStock/Getty Images
She presented the findings from an umbrella review of 13 dose-response meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The study is believed to be the first comprehensive overview of the available evidence from all published meta-analyses on the relationship between well-defined amounts of animal-origin foods and the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Giosuè and colleagues focused on animal-based foods because they represent a gap in most guidelines for type 2 diabetes prevention, she explained.
“The existing evidence and dietary recommendations for type 2 diabetes prevention are mainly based on the appropriate consumption of plant foods: high amounts of the fiber-rich ones and low consumption of the refined ones as well as those rich in free sugars. And also on the adequate choice among fat sources – reduction of saturated fat sources like butter and cream and replacement with plant-based poly- and monounsaturated fat sources like nontropical vegetable oils. But not on the most suitable choices among different animal foods for the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” she explained.
The new findings are in line with the Mediterranean diet in that, while plant based, it also limits red-meat consumption, but not all animal-based foods, and has consistently been associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes. Vegetarian diets have also been associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, but far less evidence is available for that, she said.
Asked for comment, session moderator Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the department of molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, said: “Decreasing intake of red and processed meat is already a strong recommendation, and these data support that. You have to make choices for and against [certain] foods. So, if you decide to eat less red meat, then the question is what do you eat instead? This study shows that specifically other animal products, like dairy and ... fish or white meat sources ... are healthy among the animal-based foods. But you could also obviously look at plant-based foods as protein sources as well.”
And Dr. Schulze noted that the data suggest another dimension to type 2 diabetes prevention beyond simply focusing on weight loss.
“You can achieve weight loss with very different diets. Diet quality plays an important role. These data support that if you look at diabetes prevention, then you would focus on people with high intakes of specific animal-based foods, besides looking at overweight and obesity. Then you could intervene to reduce this intake, with potential substitutions with other animal foods like fish or white meat, or plant-based sources of proteins.”
Red meat damages, dairy protects
The 13 meta-analyses included 175 summary risk ratios for type 2 diabetes incidence for the consumption of total meat, red meat, white meat, processed meats, fish, total dairy, full-fat dairy, low-fat dairy, milk, cheese, yogurt, or eggs.
Significant increases in the risk of developing type 2 diabetes were found for consumption of 100 g/day of total meat (SRR, 1.20; 20% increase) and red meat (SRR, 1.22, 22% increase) and with 50 g/day of processed meats (SRR, 1.30; 30% increase). A borderline increased risk was also seen for 50 g/day of white meat (SRR, 1.04; 4% increase).
The opposite was found for dairy foods. Inverse associations for type 2 diabetes development were found for an intake of 200 g/day of total dairy (SRR, 0.95; 5% reduction), low-fat dairy (SRR, 0.96; 4% reduction), milk (SRR, 0.90; 10% reduction), and for 100 g/day of yogurt (SRR, 0.94, 6% reduction).
Neutral (nonsignificant) effects were found for 200 g/day of full-fat dairy (SRR, 0.98) and for 30 g/day of cheese (SRR, 0.97). Fish consumption also had a neutral association with type 2 diabetes risk (SRR, 1.04 for 100 g/day) as did one egg per day (SRR, 1.07), but evidence quality was low.
And, Dr. Giosuè noted during her presentation, these relationships could change with alterations in the amounts consumed.
Dr. Schulze commented: “Fish is more clearly related to reduced cardiovascular risk than for preventing type 2 diabetes, where we’ve had mixed results. They might not always be the same.”
What are the mechanisms?
The reasons for these positive and negative associations aren’t entirely clear, but Dr. Giosuè noted that dairy products contain several nutrients, vitamins, and other components, such as calcium and vitamin D, that have potential beneficial effects on glucose metabolism.
In particular, she said, “Whey proteins in milk have a well-known beneficial effect on the regulation of the rise of glucose levels in the blood after meals, and also on the control of appetite and body weight.”
Moreover, probiotics found in yogurt have been linked to protective effects against weight gain and obesity, which “may in part [explain] the beneficial role of yogurt in type 2 diabetes prevention.”
Meat, in contrast, is full of cholesterol, saturated fatty acids, and heme iron, which can promote subclinical inflammation and oxidative stress, which may in turn, affect insulin sensitivity, Dr. Giosuè explained. What’s more, “processed meats also contain nitrates, nitrites, and sodium that can contribute to pancreatic cell damage and vascular dysfunction, thus affecting insulin sensitivity.”
And white meat (poultry) has a lower fat content than red meats such as beef, lamb, and pork, as well as a more favorable fatty acid profile and a lower heme-iron content, she said in an interview.
What about vegan diets? The devil is in the details
Asked about the relative health benefits of diets that completely eliminate animal-based foods, Dr. Giosuè replied: “What is important to keep in mind when hearing about the potential of vegan diets to prevent, or manage, or induce the remission of type 2 diabetes, is that the inclusion in the diet of solely foods of plant origin does not mean ‘automatically’ to eat only foods that are good for diabetes prevention.”
“Just like the exclusion of all foods of animal origin is not equivalent to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes ... Solid evidence has demonstrated that plant foods which are refined and/or rich in free sugars like white bread, biscuits, and sweetened beverages are as harmful as red and processed meats for diabetes incidence and progression.”
Dr. Giosuè and Dr. Schulze have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.
While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.
Kendall Ervin
Case
A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?
A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.
B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.
In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.
Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids
Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.1 They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.
Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control
Dr. Douglas S. Paauw
trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.2 Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.
Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.3 Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).3
Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs
There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.
For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.
Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
Summary
Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.
Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.4
Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.
While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.
Kendall Ervin
Case
A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?
A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.
B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.
In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.
Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids
Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.1 They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.
Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control
Dr. Douglas S. Paauw
trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.2 Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.
Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.3 Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).3
Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs
There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.
For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.
Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
Summary
Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.
Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.4
Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.
While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.
Kendall Ervin
Case
A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?
A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.
B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.
In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.
Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids
Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.1 They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.
Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control
Dr. Douglas S. Paauw
trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.2 Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.
Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.3 Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).3
Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs
There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.
For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.
Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
Summary
Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.
Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.4
Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.
Why this matters
Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.
Study design
A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.
Key results
During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
–Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
–Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).
The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
–At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
–Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
–At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.
Limitations
Observational design.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Reference
Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.
Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.
Why this matters
Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.
Study design
A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.
Key results
During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
–Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
–Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).
The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
–At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
–Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
–At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.
Limitations
Observational design.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Reference
Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.
Takeaway
Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.
Why this matters
Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.
Study design
A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.
Key results
During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
–Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
–Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).
The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
–At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
–Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
–At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.
Limitations
Observational design.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Reference
Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
