User login
Disparities in statin use persist in high-risk Americans
Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.
Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.
The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.
“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”
Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.
Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.
Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.
The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.
Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk
The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).
The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.
The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”
A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.
“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.
Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.
Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.
Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.
The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.
“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”
Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.
Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.
Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.
The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.
Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk
The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).
The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.
The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”
A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.
“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.
Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.
Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.
Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.
The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.
“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”
Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.
Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.
Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.
The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.
Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk
The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).
The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.
The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”
A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.
“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.
Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
FDA expands evinacumab approval to younger kids with HoFH
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mediterranean diet linked to 24% reduction in CVD risk in women
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral PCSK9 inhibitor shows encouraging LDL lowering
A new oral formulation of a PCSK9-inhibiting, cholesterol-lowering drug in development by Merck has shown encouraging results in a phase 2 study.
The study was presented by Christie Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“In this diverse population of hypercholesterolemic patients, all doses of MK-0616 showed superior reduction of LDL vs. placebo up to a 60.9% placebo-adjusted reduction from baseline to week 8, which was consistent across subgroups,” Dr. Ballantyne reported.
“Reduction in ApoB and non-HDL cholesterol were consistent with that of LDL cholesterol, with up to a 51.8% reduction in ApoB and a 55.8% reduction in non-HDL,” he noted.
He added that the drug was well tolerated with no difference in adverse events across the treatment groups, compared with placebo.
“These data support the further development of MK-0616, an oral PCSK9 inhibitor that may improve access to effective LDL-cholesterol lowering therapies and improve attainment of guideline-recommended LDL goals aimed at reducing cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Ballantyne concluded. “The results are encouraging for a phase 3 program that is now being designed.”
He explained that elevated LDL is a primary causative factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and despite effective treatments (statins), a large proportion of patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL levels. Injectable treatments targeting PCSK9 have demonstrated large reductions in LDL and decreased risk of ASCVD events, but access barriers and need for repeat injections have led to poor adoption. An oral PCSK9 inhibitor may widen access and improve attainment of guideline-recommended treatment goals.
Dr. Ballantyne described the new drug, MK-0616, as a “macrocyclic peptide that can bind PCSK9 with monoclonal antibody-like affinity at 1/100th of the molecular weight.”
The current phase 2 study included 381 adult patients (49% female; median age 62 years) with a wide range of ASCVD risk. Average LDL-C level was 119.5 mg/dL at baseline. Around 40% of patients were not taking statins, 35% were on low- to moderate-intensity statin therapy, and 26% were on high-intensity statin therapy.
They were randomly assigned to four different doses of MK-0616 (6, 12, 18, or 30 mg once daily) or matching placebo.
Results showed that all doses of MK-0616 demonstrated statistically significant differences in percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 8 vs. placebo: –41.2% (6 mg), –55.7% (12 mg), –59.1% (18 mg), and –60.9% (30 mg).
The mean percentage changes in ApoB from baseline vs. placebo were –32.8%, –45.8%, –48.7%, and 51.8% for the four escalating doses of the drug. And non-HDL cholesterol changes were –35.9%, –50.5%, –53.2%, and –55.8% respectively.
The proportion of participants at protocol-defined goals for LDL reduction was 80.5%, 85.5%, 90.8%, and 90.8% with MK-0616 at the 6-mg, 12-mg, 18-mg, and 30-mg doses, compared with 9.3% with placebo.
Dr. Ballantyne reported that the efficacy looked similar in all subgroups, and regardless of baseline therapy.
“This was a dose-finding study, which will help select a dose to be taken forward in larger studies, and it looks from these results as though you get most of the efficacy by 12 mg,” he added.
Adverse events occurred in a proportion of participants in the MK-0616 groups (39.5% to 43.4%) similar to that of placebo (44.0%), and discontinuations as a result of adverse events occurred in two or fewer participants in any treatment group.
‘Super exciting’
Putting the results of his study into perspective at an ACC press conference, Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, associate professor in the department of pharmacotherapy and translational research at the University of Florida in Gainesville, commented.
“For the last quarter of a century we have had statins available to treat elevated LDL and atherosclerosis and despite that we have many patients who refuse to take statins or are afraid to take statins,” she said. “This is not about cost as the statins are all available generically now. But many patients claim to be intolerant or unresponsive.”
She noted that in 2015/2016 the first injectable PCSK9 inhibitors became available “which really were very exciting molecules, but they have a high cost and access issues, and patients often do not like injections so there are still a lot of issues.”
Dr. Cooper-DeHoff pointed out that this oral PCSK9 inhibitor seems to be as effective at lowering LDL as the injectable products regardless of whether statins are on board or not, which she said was “super exciting.”
She added: “We are all going to be waiting excitedly for the outcome data with this oral PCSK9 inhibitor.”
She also noted that another study (CLEAR Outcomes) presented at the ACC meeting showed good lipid-lowering results and a reduction in cardiovascular outcomes in statin-intolerant patients with another oral lipid lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol).
She said the two oral drugs promised a “very bright for the future for LDL lowering and the treatment of atherosclerosis in our patients,” adding that “we are now really chipping away at the barriers to achieving the holy grail of guideline-directed LDL lowering to prevent hard outcomes.”
The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology at the time of presentation.
This study was funded by Merck. Dr. Ballantyne has received grant/research support through his institution from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Arrowhead, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics and has been a consultant for 89Bio, Abbott Diagnostics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Illumina, Ionis, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new oral formulation of a PCSK9-inhibiting, cholesterol-lowering drug in development by Merck has shown encouraging results in a phase 2 study.
The study was presented by Christie Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“In this diverse population of hypercholesterolemic patients, all doses of MK-0616 showed superior reduction of LDL vs. placebo up to a 60.9% placebo-adjusted reduction from baseline to week 8, which was consistent across subgroups,” Dr. Ballantyne reported.
“Reduction in ApoB and non-HDL cholesterol were consistent with that of LDL cholesterol, with up to a 51.8% reduction in ApoB and a 55.8% reduction in non-HDL,” he noted.
He added that the drug was well tolerated with no difference in adverse events across the treatment groups, compared with placebo.
“These data support the further development of MK-0616, an oral PCSK9 inhibitor that may improve access to effective LDL-cholesterol lowering therapies and improve attainment of guideline-recommended LDL goals aimed at reducing cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Ballantyne concluded. “The results are encouraging for a phase 3 program that is now being designed.”
He explained that elevated LDL is a primary causative factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and despite effective treatments (statins), a large proportion of patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL levels. Injectable treatments targeting PCSK9 have demonstrated large reductions in LDL and decreased risk of ASCVD events, but access barriers and need for repeat injections have led to poor adoption. An oral PCSK9 inhibitor may widen access and improve attainment of guideline-recommended treatment goals.
Dr. Ballantyne described the new drug, MK-0616, as a “macrocyclic peptide that can bind PCSK9 with monoclonal antibody-like affinity at 1/100th of the molecular weight.”
The current phase 2 study included 381 adult patients (49% female; median age 62 years) with a wide range of ASCVD risk. Average LDL-C level was 119.5 mg/dL at baseline. Around 40% of patients were not taking statins, 35% were on low- to moderate-intensity statin therapy, and 26% were on high-intensity statin therapy.
They were randomly assigned to four different doses of MK-0616 (6, 12, 18, or 30 mg once daily) or matching placebo.
Results showed that all doses of MK-0616 demonstrated statistically significant differences in percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 8 vs. placebo: –41.2% (6 mg), –55.7% (12 mg), –59.1% (18 mg), and –60.9% (30 mg).
The mean percentage changes in ApoB from baseline vs. placebo were –32.8%, –45.8%, –48.7%, and 51.8% for the four escalating doses of the drug. And non-HDL cholesterol changes were –35.9%, –50.5%, –53.2%, and –55.8% respectively.
The proportion of participants at protocol-defined goals for LDL reduction was 80.5%, 85.5%, 90.8%, and 90.8% with MK-0616 at the 6-mg, 12-mg, 18-mg, and 30-mg doses, compared with 9.3% with placebo.
Dr. Ballantyne reported that the efficacy looked similar in all subgroups, and regardless of baseline therapy.
“This was a dose-finding study, which will help select a dose to be taken forward in larger studies, and it looks from these results as though you get most of the efficacy by 12 mg,” he added.
Adverse events occurred in a proportion of participants in the MK-0616 groups (39.5% to 43.4%) similar to that of placebo (44.0%), and discontinuations as a result of adverse events occurred in two or fewer participants in any treatment group.
‘Super exciting’
Putting the results of his study into perspective at an ACC press conference, Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, associate professor in the department of pharmacotherapy and translational research at the University of Florida in Gainesville, commented.
“For the last quarter of a century we have had statins available to treat elevated LDL and atherosclerosis and despite that we have many patients who refuse to take statins or are afraid to take statins,” she said. “This is not about cost as the statins are all available generically now. But many patients claim to be intolerant or unresponsive.”
She noted that in 2015/2016 the first injectable PCSK9 inhibitors became available “which really were very exciting molecules, but they have a high cost and access issues, and patients often do not like injections so there are still a lot of issues.”
Dr. Cooper-DeHoff pointed out that this oral PCSK9 inhibitor seems to be as effective at lowering LDL as the injectable products regardless of whether statins are on board or not, which she said was “super exciting.”
She added: “We are all going to be waiting excitedly for the outcome data with this oral PCSK9 inhibitor.”
She also noted that another study (CLEAR Outcomes) presented at the ACC meeting showed good lipid-lowering results and a reduction in cardiovascular outcomes in statin-intolerant patients with another oral lipid lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol).
She said the two oral drugs promised a “very bright for the future for LDL lowering and the treatment of atherosclerosis in our patients,” adding that “we are now really chipping away at the barriers to achieving the holy grail of guideline-directed LDL lowering to prevent hard outcomes.”
The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology at the time of presentation.
This study was funded by Merck. Dr. Ballantyne has received grant/research support through his institution from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Arrowhead, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics and has been a consultant for 89Bio, Abbott Diagnostics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Illumina, Ionis, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new oral formulation of a PCSK9-inhibiting, cholesterol-lowering drug in development by Merck has shown encouraging results in a phase 2 study.
The study was presented by Christie Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“In this diverse population of hypercholesterolemic patients, all doses of MK-0616 showed superior reduction of LDL vs. placebo up to a 60.9% placebo-adjusted reduction from baseline to week 8, which was consistent across subgroups,” Dr. Ballantyne reported.
“Reduction in ApoB and non-HDL cholesterol were consistent with that of LDL cholesterol, with up to a 51.8% reduction in ApoB and a 55.8% reduction in non-HDL,” he noted.
He added that the drug was well tolerated with no difference in adverse events across the treatment groups, compared with placebo.
“These data support the further development of MK-0616, an oral PCSK9 inhibitor that may improve access to effective LDL-cholesterol lowering therapies and improve attainment of guideline-recommended LDL goals aimed at reducing cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Ballantyne concluded. “The results are encouraging for a phase 3 program that is now being designed.”
He explained that elevated LDL is a primary causative factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and despite effective treatments (statins), a large proportion of patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL levels. Injectable treatments targeting PCSK9 have demonstrated large reductions in LDL and decreased risk of ASCVD events, but access barriers and need for repeat injections have led to poor adoption. An oral PCSK9 inhibitor may widen access and improve attainment of guideline-recommended treatment goals.
Dr. Ballantyne described the new drug, MK-0616, as a “macrocyclic peptide that can bind PCSK9 with monoclonal antibody-like affinity at 1/100th of the molecular weight.”
The current phase 2 study included 381 adult patients (49% female; median age 62 years) with a wide range of ASCVD risk. Average LDL-C level was 119.5 mg/dL at baseline. Around 40% of patients were not taking statins, 35% were on low- to moderate-intensity statin therapy, and 26% were on high-intensity statin therapy.
They were randomly assigned to four different doses of MK-0616 (6, 12, 18, or 30 mg once daily) or matching placebo.
Results showed that all doses of MK-0616 demonstrated statistically significant differences in percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 8 vs. placebo: –41.2% (6 mg), –55.7% (12 mg), –59.1% (18 mg), and –60.9% (30 mg).
The mean percentage changes in ApoB from baseline vs. placebo were –32.8%, –45.8%, –48.7%, and 51.8% for the four escalating doses of the drug. And non-HDL cholesterol changes were –35.9%, –50.5%, –53.2%, and –55.8% respectively.
The proportion of participants at protocol-defined goals for LDL reduction was 80.5%, 85.5%, 90.8%, and 90.8% with MK-0616 at the 6-mg, 12-mg, 18-mg, and 30-mg doses, compared with 9.3% with placebo.
Dr. Ballantyne reported that the efficacy looked similar in all subgroups, and regardless of baseline therapy.
“This was a dose-finding study, which will help select a dose to be taken forward in larger studies, and it looks from these results as though you get most of the efficacy by 12 mg,” he added.
Adverse events occurred in a proportion of participants in the MK-0616 groups (39.5% to 43.4%) similar to that of placebo (44.0%), and discontinuations as a result of adverse events occurred in two or fewer participants in any treatment group.
‘Super exciting’
Putting the results of his study into perspective at an ACC press conference, Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, associate professor in the department of pharmacotherapy and translational research at the University of Florida in Gainesville, commented.
“For the last quarter of a century we have had statins available to treat elevated LDL and atherosclerosis and despite that we have many patients who refuse to take statins or are afraid to take statins,” she said. “This is not about cost as the statins are all available generically now. But many patients claim to be intolerant or unresponsive.”
She noted that in 2015/2016 the first injectable PCSK9 inhibitors became available “which really were very exciting molecules, but they have a high cost and access issues, and patients often do not like injections so there are still a lot of issues.”
Dr. Cooper-DeHoff pointed out that this oral PCSK9 inhibitor seems to be as effective at lowering LDL as the injectable products regardless of whether statins are on board or not, which she said was “super exciting.”
She added: “We are all going to be waiting excitedly for the outcome data with this oral PCSK9 inhibitor.”
She also noted that another study (CLEAR Outcomes) presented at the ACC meeting showed good lipid-lowering results and a reduction in cardiovascular outcomes in statin-intolerant patients with another oral lipid lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol).
She said the two oral drugs promised a “very bright for the future for LDL lowering and the treatment of atherosclerosis in our patients,” adding that “we are now really chipping away at the barriers to achieving the holy grail of guideline-directed LDL lowering to prevent hard outcomes.”
The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology at the time of presentation.
This study was funded by Merck. Dr. Ballantyne has received grant/research support through his institution from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Arrowhead, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics and has been a consultant for 89Bio, Abbott Diagnostics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Illumina, Ionis, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
What’s it like to take Ozempic? A doctor’s own story
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Causal link found between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM DIABETOLOGIA
‘Keto-like’ diet linked to doubling of heart disease risk
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
20 years of clinical research in cardiology
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
Heart-healthy actions promote longer, disease-free life
Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.
The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.
In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.
CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.
The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.
Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.
The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.
In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.
Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.
The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.
For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.
Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).
Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.
The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.
The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.
More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.
“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.
People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.
The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.
The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.
In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.
CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.
The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.
Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.
The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.
In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.
Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.
The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.
For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.
Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).
Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.
The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.
The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.
More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.
“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.
People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.
The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.
The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.
In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.
CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.
The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.
Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.
The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.
In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.
Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.
The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.
For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.
Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).
Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.
The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.
The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.
More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.
“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.
People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.
The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM EPI/LIFESTYLE 2023
Keto/paleo diets ‘lower quality than others,’ and bad for planet
suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.
The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.
This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.
Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”
Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.
“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.
“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.
To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.
The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.
The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.
The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.
Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.
Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.
The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).
The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.
Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.
Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”
The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.
The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.
The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.
This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.
Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”
Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.
“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.
“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.
To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.
The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.
The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.
The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.
Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.
Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.
The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).
The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.
Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.
Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”
The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.
The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.
The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.
This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.
Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”
Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.
“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.
“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.
To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.
The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.
The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.
The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.
Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.
Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.
The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).
The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.
Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.
Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”
The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.
The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION