User login
Exercise training reduces liver fat in patients with NAFLD, even without weight loss
(NAFLD), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
An exercise dose of 750 metabolic equivalents of task (MET)–minutes per week – or 150 minutes per week of brisk walking – was required to achieve a treatment response, independently of weight loss.
“In the absence of a regulatory agency–approved drug treatment or a cure, lifestyle modification with dietary change and increased exercise is recommended for all patients with NAFLD,” first author Jonathan Stine, MD, an associate professor of medicine and public health sciences and director of the fatty liver program at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, said in an interview.
“With that said, there are many key unanswered questions about how to best prescribe exercise as medicine to our patients with NAFLD, including whether the liver-specific benefit of exercise can be seen without any body weight loss,” Dr. Stine said. “And if found, what dose of exercise is required in order to achieve clinically meaningful benefit?” He noted that this analysis is a step toward helping to answer these questions.
The study by Dr. Stine and colleagues was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Analyzing studies
Exercise training, which includes planned and structured physical activity intended to improve physical fitness, has been shown to provide multiple benefits for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. The gains include improvements in liver fat, physical fitness, body composition, vascular biology, and health-related quality of life.
However, it has been unclear whether exercise training achieves a 30% or more relative reduction in liver fat, which is considered the minimal clinically important difference and is a surrogate for histologic response or improvement in liver fibrosis.
In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Dr. Stine and colleagues analyzed the evidence for MRI-measured liver reduction in response to exercise training across different doses, with a 30% or more relative reduction serving as the primary outcome. They included randomized controlled trials in adults with NAFLD who participated in exercise training programs.
The 14 studies included a total of 551 participants. The average age of the participants was 53 years, and the average body mass index was 31 kg/mg2. The duration of the interventions ranged from 4 to 52 weeks and included different types of exercise, such as aerobic, high-intensity interval, resistance, and aerobic plus resistance training.
No study yielded the clinically significant weight loss required for histologic response (7%-10%). The average weight loss was about 2.8% among those who participated in exercise training.
Overall, seven studies with 152 participants had data for the 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat. The pooled rate was 34% for exercise training and 13% for the control condition.
In general, those who participated in exercise training were 3.5 times more likely to achieve a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat than those in the control condition.
Among all participants, the mean change in absolute liver fat was –6.7% for the 338 participants enrolled in exercise training, compared with –0.8% for the 213 participants under the control condition. The pooled mean difference in absolute change in MRI-measured liver fat for exercise training versus the control was –5.8%.
For relative change in MRI-measured liver fat, researchers analyzed nine studies with 195 participants – 118 participants in exercise training, and 77 control participants. The mean relative change was –24.1% among the exercise training group and 7.3% among the control group. The pooled mean difference in relative change for exercise training versus the control was –26.4%.
For all 14 studies, an exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week resulted in a significant treatment response. This equates to 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity exercise, such as jogging or cycling.
Among participants who had 750 MET-minutes per week, there was a –8% absolute and –28.9% relative mean difference in MRI-measured liver fat, compared with –4.1% and –22.8%, respectively, among those who had fewer than 750 MET-minutes per week.
An exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week led to a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat in 39.3% of participants, compared with 25.7% who had fewer than that threshold.
The treatment response was independent of clinically significant body weight loss of more than 5%.
“Prior to our study, it was felt that body weight loss of at least 5% was required in order to significantly improve liver histology,” Dr. Stine said. “Our findings challenge this thought in that exercise training achieved rates of clinically significant liver fat reduction.”
Ongoing research
Dr. Stine and colleagues are continuing their research and are directly comparing exercise doses of 750 MET-minutes per week and 1,000 MET-minutes per week to standard clinical care in adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or the progressive type of NAFLD.
“Importantly, this new study we’re undertaking is designed to mimic a real-world setting in which people’s daily schedules are highly variable,” he said. “Our experienced team of exercise professionals may vary frequency and time of exercise in a week so long as our study participant achieves the prescribed dose of exercise.”
Currently, leading professional societies have not reached consensus regarding the optimal physical activity program for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. However, most clinical guidelines support at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity.
Although more head-to-head clinical trials are needed, exercise training appears to reduce liver fat and provides other benefits, such as cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition changes, and improvements in vascular biology, they wrote.
“The important piece here is that this review shows that there does not have to be weight loss for improvements in fatty liver,” Jill Kanaley, PhD, a professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at University of Missouri–Columbia, said in an interview.
Dr. Kanaley, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched exercise training among patients with NAFLD. She and her colleagues have found that moderate-and high-intensity exercise can decrease intrahepatic lipid content and NAFLD risk factors, independently of abdominal fat or body mass reductions.
“So often, people get frustrated with exercise if they do not see weight loss,” she said. “But in this case, there seems to be benefits of the exercise, even without weight loss.”
The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have received research funding and have had consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kanaley reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(NAFLD), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
An exercise dose of 750 metabolic equivalents of task (MET)–minutes per week – or 150 minutes per week of brisk walking – was required to achieve a treatment response, independently of weight loss.
“In the absence of a regulatory agency–approved drug treatment or a cure, lifestyle modification with dietary change and increased exercise is recommended for all patients with NAFLD,” first author Jonathan Stine, MD, an associate professor of medicine and public health sciences and director of the fatty liver program at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, said in an interview.
“With that said, there are many key unanswered questions about how to best prescribe exercise as medicine to our patients with NAFLD, including whether the liver-specific benefit of exercise can be seen without any body weight loss,” Dr. Stine said. “And if found, what dose of exercise is required in order to achieve clinically meaningful benefit?” He noted that this analysis is a step toward helping to answer these questions.
The study by Dr. Stine and colleagues was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Analyzing studies
Exercise training, which includes planned and structured physical activity intended to improve physical fitness, has been shown to provide multiple benefits for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. The gains include improvements in liver fat, physical fitness, body composition, vascular biology, and health-related quality of life.
However, it has been unclear whether exercise training achieves a 30% or more relative reduction in liver fat, which is considered the minimal clinically important difference and is a surrogate for histologic response or improvement in liver fibrosis.
In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Dr. Stine and colleagues analyzed the evidence for MRI-measured liver reduction in response to exercise training across different doses, with a 30% or more relative reduction serving as the primary outcome. They included randomized controlled trials in adults with NAFLD who participated in exercise training programs.
The 14 studies included a total of 551 participants. The average age of the participants was 53 years, and the average body mass index was 31 kg/mg2. The duration of the interventions ranged from 4 to 52 weeks and included different types of exercise, such as aerobic, high-intensity interval, resistance, and aerobic plus resistance training.
No study yielded the clinically significant weight loss required for histologic response (7%-10%). The average weight loss was about 2.8% among those who participated in exercise training.
Overall, seven studies with 152 participants had data for the 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat. The pooled rate was 34% for exercise training and 13% for the control condition.
In general, those who participated in exercise training were 3.5 times more likely to achieve a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat than those in the control condition.
Among all participants, the mean change in absolute liver fat was –6.7% for the 338 participants enrolled in exercise training, compared with –0.8% for the 213 participants under the control condition. The pooled mean difference in absolute change in MRI-measured liver fat for exercise training versus the control was –5.8%.
For relative change in MRI-measured liver fat, researchers analyzed nine studies with 195 participants – 118 participants in exercise training, and 77 control participants. The mean relative change was –24.1% among the exercise training group and 7.3% among the control group. The pooled mean difference in relative change for exercise training versus the control was –26.4%.
For all 14 studies, an exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week resulted in a significant treatment response. This equates to 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity exercise, such as jogging or cycling.
Among participants who had 750 MET-minutes per week, there was a –8% absolute and –28.9% relative mean difference in MRI-measured liver fat, compared with –4.1% and –22.8%, respectively, among those who had fewer than 750 MET-minutes per week.
An exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week led to a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat in 39.3% of participants, compared with 25.7% who had fewer than that threshold.
The treatment response was independent of clinically significant body weight loss of more than 5%.
“Prior to our study, it was felt that body weight loss of at least 5% was required in order to significantly improve liver histology,” Dr. Stine said. “Our findings challenge this thought in that exercise training achieved rates of clinically significant liver fat reduction.”
Ongoing research
Dr. Stine and colleagues are continuing their research and are directly comparing exercise doses of 750 MET-minutes per week and 1,000 MET-minutes per week to standard clinical care in adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or the progressive type of NAFLD.
“Importantly, this new study we’re undertaking is designed to mimic a real-world setting in which people’s daily schedules are highly variable,” he said. “Our experienced team of exercise professionals may vary frequency and time of exercise in a week so long as our study participant achieves the prescribed dose of exercise.”
Currently, leading professional societies have not reached consensus regarding the optimal physical activity program for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. However, most clinical guidelines support at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity.
Although more head-to-head clinical trials are needed, exercise training appears to reduce liver fat and provides other benefits, such as cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition changes, and improvements in vascular biology, they wrote.
“The important piece here is that this review shows that there does not have to be weight loss for improvements in fatty liver,” Jill Kanaley, PhD, a professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at University of Missouri–Columbia, said in an interview.
Dr. Kanaley, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched exercise training among patients with NAFLD. She and her colleagues have found that moderate-and high-intensity exercise can decrease intrahepatic lipid content and NAFLD risk factors, independently of abdominal fat or body mass reductions.
“So often, people get frustrated with exercise if they do not see weight loss,” she said. “But in this case, there seems to be benefits of the exercise, even without weight loss.”
The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have received research funding and have had consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kanaley reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(NAFLD), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
An exercise dose of 750 metabolic equivalents of task (MET)–minutes per week – or 150 minutes per week of brisk walking – was required to achieve a treatment response, independently of weight loss.
“In the absence of a regulatory agency–approved drug treatment or a cure, lifestyle modification with dietary change and increased exercise is recommended for all patients with NAFLD,” first author Jonathan Stine, MD, an associate professor of medicine and public health sciences and director of the fatty liver program at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, said in an interview.
“With that said, there are many key unanswered questions about how to best prescribe exercise as medicine to our patients with NAFLD, including whether the liver-specific benefit of exercise can be seen without any body weight loss,” Dr. Stine said. “And if found, what dose of exercise is required in order to achieve clinically meaningful benefit?” He noted that this analysis is a step toward helping to answer these questions.
The study by Dr. Stine and colleagues was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Analyzing studies
Exercise training, which includes planned and structured physical activity intended to improve physical fitness, has been shown to provide multiple benefits for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. The gains include improvements in liver fat, physical fitness, body composition, vascular biology, and health-related quality of life.
However, it has been unclear whether exercise training achieves a 30% or more relative reduction in liver fat, which is considered the minimal clinically important difference and is a surrogate for histologic response or improvement in liver fibrosis.
In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Dr. Stine and colleagues analyzed the evidence for MRI-measured liver reduction in response to exercise training across different doses, with a 30% or more relative reduction serving as the primary outcome. They included randomized controlled trials in adults with NAFLD who participated in exercise training programs.
The 14 studies included a total of 551 participants. The average age of the participants was 53 years, and the average body mass index was 31 kg/mg2. The duration of the interventions ranged from 4 to 52 weeks and included different types of exercise, such as aerobic, high-intensity interval, resistance, and aerobic plus resistance training.
No study yielded the clinically significant weight loss required for histologic response (7%-10%). The average weight loss was about 2.8% among those who participated in exercise training.
Overall, seven studies with 152 participants had data for the 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat. The pooled rate was 34% for exercise training and 13% for the control condition.
In general, those who participated in exercise training were 3.5 times more likely to achieve a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat than those in the control condition.
Among all participants, the mean change in absolute liver fat was –6.7% for the 338 participants enrolled in exercise training, compared with –0.8% for the 213 participants under the control condition. The pooled mean difference in absolute change in MRI-measured liver fat for exercise training versus the control was –5.8%.
For relative change in MRI-measured liver fat, researchers analyzed nine studies with 195 participants – 118 participants in exercise training, and 77 control participants. The mean relative change was –24.1% among the exercise training group and 7.3% among the control group. The pooled mean difference in relative change for exercise training versus the control was –26.4%.
For all 14 studies, an exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week resulted in a significant treatment response. This equates to 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity exercise, such as jogging or cycling.
Among participants who had 750 MET-minutes per week, there was a –8% absolute and –28.9% relative mean difference in MRI-measured liver fat, compared with –4.1% and –22.8%, respectively, among those who had fewer than 750 MET-minutes per week.
An exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week led to a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat in 39.3% of participants, compared with 25.7% who had fewer than that threshold.
The treatment response was independent of clinically significant body weight loss of more than 5%.
“Prior to our study, it was felt that body weight loss of at least 5% was required in order to significantly improve liver histology,” Dr. Stine said. “Our findings challenge this thought in that exercise training achieved rates of clinically significant liver fat reduction.”
Ongoing research
Dr. Stine and colleagues are continuing their research and are directly comparing exercise doses of 750 MET-minutes per week and 1,000 MET-minutes per week to standard clinical care in adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or the progressive type of NAFLD.
“Importantly, this new study we’re undertaking is designed to mimic a real-world setting in which people’s daily schedules are highly variable,” he said. “Our experienced team of exercise professionals may vary frequency and time of exercise in a week so long as our study participant achieves the prescribed dose of exercise.”
Currently, leading professional societies have not reached consensus regarding the optimal physical activity program for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. However, most clinical guidelines support at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity.
Although more head-to-head clinical trials are needed, exercise training appears to reduce liver fat and provides other benefits, such as cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition changes, and improvements in vascular biology, they wrote.
“The important piece here is that this review shows that there does not have to be weight loss for improvements in fatty liver,” Jill Kanaley, PhD, a professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at University of Missouri–Columbia, said in an interview.
Dr. Kanaley, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched exercise training among patients with NAFLD. She and her colleagues have found that moderate-and high-intensity exercise can decrease intrahepatic lipid content and NAFLD risk factors, independently of abdominal fat or body mass reductions.
“So often, people get frustrated with exercise if they do not see weight loss,” she said. “But in this case, there seems to be benefits of the exercise, even without weight loss.”
The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have received research funding and have had consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kanaley reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Keto for life? Reasons to think twice
Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.
Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.
If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.
How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.
If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
Keto for life?
Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.
Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.
Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.
The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
Why are we fooling the brain?
We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.
That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.
It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.
The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.
Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.
The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.
Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.
Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.
If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.
How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.
If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
Keto for life?
Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.
Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.
Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.
The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
Why are we fooling the brain?
We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.
That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.
It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.
The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.
Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.
The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.
Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.
Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.
If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.
How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.
If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
Keto for life?
Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.
Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.
Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.
The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
Why are we fooling the brain?
We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.
That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.
It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.
The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.
Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.
The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.
Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Persistent gaps in drug use by patients with type 2 diabetes
Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.
A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.
A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.
“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.
Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.
The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.
Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.
“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”
“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.
“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.
“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Investigating trends in medication adherence
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.
After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.
Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.
However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.
Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.
The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.
About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).
Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.
“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.
They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.
The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.
It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.
Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.
“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.
“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.
This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.
Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).
The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.
A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.
A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.
“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.
Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.
The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.
Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.
“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”
“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.
“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.
“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Investigating trends in medication adherence
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.
After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.
Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.
However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.
Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.
The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.
About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).
Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.
“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.
They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.
The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.
It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.
Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.
“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.
“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.
This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.
Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).
The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.
A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.
A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.
“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.
Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.
The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.
Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.
“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”
“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.
“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.
“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Investigating trends in medication adherence
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.
After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.
Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.
However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.
Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.
The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.
About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).
Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.
“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.
They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.
The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.
It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.
Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.
“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.
“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.
This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.
Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).
The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
‘Ozempic face’: Accepting wrinkles for improved health
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.
I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.
Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.
The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.
What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.
It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.
Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.
I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.
Thank you.
Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.
I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.
Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.
The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.
What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.
It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.
Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.
I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.
Thank you.
Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.
I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.
Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.
The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.
What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.
It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.
Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.
I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.
Thank you.
Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Universal testing for Lp(a): What are we waiting for?
It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.
Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?
Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).
Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.
A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
One-time cost, lifetime benefit?
Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.
As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.
Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.
The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
U.S. guidelines need updating
To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.
To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.
The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.
Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.
Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.
Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?
Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).
Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.
A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
One-time cost, lifetime benefit?
Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.
As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.
Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.
The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
U.S. guidelines need updating
To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.
To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.
The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.
Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.
Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.
Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?
Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).
Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.
A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
One-time cost, lifetime benefit?
Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.
As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.
Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.
The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
U.S. guidelines need updating
To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.
To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.
The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.
Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.
Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CV deaths jumped in 2020, reflecting pandemic toll
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Elevated PCSK9 levels associated with psoriasis suggest new treatment target
A Mendelian randomization study employing data from nearly 300,000 individuals has linked elevated levels of the PCSK9 enzyme with an increased risk of psoriasis, suggesting it might be targetable as an intervention.
. Conversely, psoriasis risk did not appear to be affected when LDL-C was reduced by other pathways of lipid control.
This study “suggests that PCSK9 inhibition is causally associated with reduced risk of psoriasis,” reported a team of investigators led by Sizheng Steven Zhao, MD, PhD, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences, University of Manchester (England). “Existing PCSK9 inhibitors hold potential as therapeutic targets for prevention, and possibly treatment, of psoriasis, although further clinical studies are needed,” they concluded.
In an interview, Dr. Zhao also noted that it will be interesting to look at psoriasis susceptibility in post hoc analyses of large randomized controlled trials of PCSK9 inhibitors for cardiovascular disease.
“Genetically proxied” inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase, which is targeted by statins, and NPC1L1 which is targeted by ezetimibe, “were not associated with psoriasis risk,” the investigators reported in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.
Abnormal lipid metabolism is sufficiently common among people with psoriasis that screening in patients with moderate to severe disease is recommended in 2019 psoriasis guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation. However, the link between these diseases is unclear. This study was launched to explore genetically proxied relationships between psoriasis and LDL-C reductions as well as specific treatments for elevated LDL-C.
Mendelian randomizations were applied to deidentified data from two sources, a UK biobank and FinnGen, a Finnish-based project for identifying genotype-to-phenotype correlations. Genetic proxies for these variables were established on the basis of genomewide association studies on large population samples.
Ultimately, 34 genetic variants were selected to proxy for lipid lowering by PCSK9, 19 were selected to proxy for HMG-CoA reductase, and 9 for NPC1L1. In the Mendelian analyses performed on the two sources, genetically proxied PCSK9 inhibition was associated with about a 30% reduction in the odds ratio of psoriasis (OR, 0.69; P = .003). There were no robust associations with proxies for reductions in either HMG-CoA reductase or NPC1L1.
In sensitivity analyses, there was no evidence of bias from pleiotropy or genetic confounding, according to Dr. Zhao and his coauthors, who noted that the relationship between reductions in PCSK9 and reduced risk of psoriasis appeared to be independent of change in circulating LDL-C.
Given the prior evidence implicating the PCSK9 enzyme in psoriasis risk, “this is an exciting study that really highlights the importance of studying and targeting lipid metabolism in psoriasis for a few reasons,” according to Michael S. Garshick, MD, a researcher, cardiologist, and director of the cardio-rheumatology program, New York University Langone Health.
An investigator who has participated in several studies evaluating the relationship between cardiovascular risk and psoriasis, Dr. Garshick said there is increasing interest in PCSK9 as a biomarker or even a mediator of inflammation independent of blood lipid levels.
“In psoriasis regarding PCSK9, we and others have shown PCSK9 is elevated in psoriatic lesion skin, and studies are starting to investigate the unique lipidomic profile in psoriasis,” Dr. Garshick said in an interview. The study he led that showed elevated PCSK9 levels in psoriatic skin was published in 2021 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
While the Mendelian randomization provides only “an inference” that PCSK9 plays a role in mediating risk of psoriasis, Dr. Zhao and coauthors cited numerous studies linking elevated PCSK9 to psoriasis pathophysiology. This not only includes the elevated PCSK9 expression in psoriatic plaques as shown by Dr. Garshick and others but several sets of experimental evidence linking PCSK9 to inflammatory pathways, including upregulation of interleukin-17 and stimulation of macrophage activation.
While Dr. Zhao and coauthors suggested that clinical trials are now needed to test the potential of PCSK9 inhibitors to modify the risk of psoriasis, Dr. Garshick indicated that there are numerous variables to unravel in the relationship between elevated lipids, PCSK9, and psoriasis.
“In our own studies, we did see a statistical correlation between circulating PCSK9 and psoriasis severity,” Dr. Garshick said. But he added, “I think we are just beginning to understand the functions of circulating (extrahepatic) PCSK9 independent of lipid metabolism.”
While he is intrigued by the evidence that PCSK9 is linked to systemic inflammation, he pointed out that several medications used to treat dyslipidemias, such as statins, are associated with an anti-inflammatory effect.
This study “further emphasizes the need to conduct clinical trials treating dyslipidemia in psoriasis, including the targeting of PCSK9, whether it is with statins with lipid lowering and potential pleiotropic anti-inflammatory properties or PCSK9 inhibition,” he said. If positive, “both would be exciting.“
From a cardiologist’s point of view, there is an upside for including patients with psoriasis in lipid-lowering trials even if the effect on psoriasis is modest. Either way, “you still get the lipid-lowering benefit, which is important for reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Garshick said.
Dr. Zhao reported financial relationships with UCB, although UCB did not provide funding for this study. One author reported grants from Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre during the study, grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Pfizer, and personal fees from Chugai Roche outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. The study was supported by grants from Versus Arthritis and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Garshick reported financial relationships with AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics.
A Mendelian randomization study employing data from nearly 300,000 individuals has linked elevated levels of the PCSK9 enzyme with an increased risk of psoriasis, suggesting it might be targetable as an intervention.
. Conversely, psoriasis risk did not appear to be affected when LDL-C was reduced by other pathways of lipid control.
This study “suggests that PCSK9 inhibition is causally associated with reduced risk of psoriasis,” reported a team of investigators led by Sizheng Steven Zhao, MD, PhD, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences, University of Manchester (England). “Existing PCSK9 inhibitors hold potential as therapeutic targets for prevention, and possibly treatment, of psoriasis, although further clinical studies are needed,” they concluded.
In an interview, Dr. Zhao also noted that it will be interesting to look at psoriasis susceptibility in post hoc analyses of large randomized controlled trials of PCSK9 inhibitors for cardiovascular disease.
“Genetically proxied” inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase, which is targeted by statins, and NPC1L1 which is targeted by ezetimibe, “were not associated with psoriasis risk,” the investigators reported in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.
Abnormal lipid metabolism is sufficiently common among people with psoriasis that screening in patients with moderate to severe disease is recommended in 2019 psoriasis guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation. However, the link between these diseases is unclear. This study was launched to explore genetically proxied relationships between psoriasis and LDL-C reductions as well as specific treatments for elevated LDL-C.
Mendelian randomizations were applied to deidentified data from two sources, a UK biobank and FinnGen, a Finnish-based project for identifying genotype-to-phenotype correlations. Genetic proxies for these variables were established on the basis of genomewide association studies on large population samples.
Ultimately, 34 genetic variants were selected to proxy for lipid lowering by PCSK9, 19 were selected to proxy for HMG-CoA reductase, and 9 for NPC1L1. In the Mendelian analyses performed on the two sources, genetically proxied PCSK9 inhibition was associated with about a 30% reduction in the odds ratio of psoriasis (OR, 0.69; P = .003). There were no robust associations with proxies for reductions in either HMG-CoA reductase or NPC1L1.
In sensitivity analyses, there was no evidence of bias from pleiotropy or genetic confounding, according to Dr. Zhao and his coauthors, who noted that the relationship between reductions in PCSK9 and reduced risk of psoriasis appeared to be independent of change in circulating LDL-C.
Given the prior evidence implicating the PCSK9 enzyme in psoriasis risk, “this is an exciting study that really highlights the importance of studying and targeting lipid metabolism in psoriasis for a few reasons,” according to Michael S. Garshick, MD, a researcher, cardiologist, and director of the cardio-rheumatology program, New York University Langone Health.
An investigator who has participated in several studies evaluating the relationship between cardiovascular risk and psoriasis, Dr. Garshick said there is increasing interest in PCSK9 as a biomarker or even a mediator of inflammation independent of blood lipid levels.
“In psoriasis regarding PCSK9, we and others have shown PCSK9 is elevated in psoriatic lesion skin, and studies are starting to investigate the unique lipidomic profile in psoriasis,” Dr. Garshick said in an interview. The study he led that showed elevated PCSK9 levels in psoriatic skin was published in 2021 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
While the Mendelian randomization provides only “an inference” that PCSK9 plays a role in mediating risk of psoriasis, Dr. Zhao and coauthors cited numerous studies linking elevated PCSK9 to psoriasis pathophysiology. This not only includes the elevated PCSK9 expression in psoriatic plaques as shown by Dr. Garshick and others but several sets of experimental evidence linking PCSK9 to inflammatory pathways, including upregulation of interleukin-17 and stimulation of macrophage activation.
While Dr. Zhao and coauthors suggested that clinical trials are now needed to test the potential of PCSK9 inhibitors to modify the risk of psoriasis, Dr. Garshick indicated that there are numerous variables to unravel in the relationship between elevated lipids, PCSK9, and psoriasis.
“In our own studies, we did see a statistical correlation between circulating PCSK9 and psoriasis severity,” Dr. Garshick said. But he added, “I think we are just beginning to understand the functions of circulating (extrahepatic) PCSK9 independent of lipid metabolism.”
While he is intrigued by the evidence that PCSK9 is linked to systemic inflammation, he pointed out that several medications used to treat dyslipidemias, such as statins, are associated with an anti-inflammatory effect.
This study “further emphasizes the need to conduct clinical trials treating dyslipidemia in psoriasis, including the targeting of PCSK9, whether it is with statins with lipid lowering and potential pleiotropic anti-inflammatory properties or PCSK9 inhibition,” he said. If positive, “both would be exciting.“
From a cardiologist’s point of view, there is an upside for including patients with psoriasis in lipid-lowering trials even if the effect on psoriasis is modest. Either way, “you still get the lipid-lowering benefit, which is important for reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Garshick said.
Dr. Zhao reported financial relationships with UCB, although UCB did not provide funding for this study. One author reported grants from Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre during the study, grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Pfizer, and personal fees from Chugai Roche outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. The study was supported by grants from Versus Arthritis and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Garshick reported financial relationships with AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics.
A Mendelian randomization study employing data from nearly 300,000 individuals has linked elevated levels of the PCSK9 enzyme with an increased risk of psoriasis, suggesting it might be targetable as an intervention.
. Conversely, psoriasis risk did not appear to be affected when LDL-C was reduced by other pathways of lipid control.
This study “suggests that PCSK9 inhibition is causally associated with reduced risk of psoriasis,” reported a team of investigators led by Sizheng Steven Zhao, MD, PhD, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences, University of Manchester (England). “Existing PCSK9 inhibitors hold potential as therapeutic targets for prevention, and possibly treatment, of psoriasis, although further clinical studies are needed,” they concluded.
In an interview, Dr. Zhao also noted that it will be interesting to look at psoriasis susceptibility in post hoc analyses of large randomized controlled trials of PCSK9 inhibitors for cardiovascular disease.
“Genetically proxied” inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase, which is targeted by statins, and NPC1L1 which is targeted by ezetimibe, “were not associated with psoriasis risk,” the investigators reported in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.
Abnormal lipid metabolism is sufficiently common among people with psoriasis that screening in patients with moderate to severe disease is recommended in 2019 psoriasis guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation. However, the link between these diseases is unclear. This study was launched to explore genetically proxied relationships between psoriasis and LDL-C reductions as well as specific treatments for elevated LDL-C.
Mendelian randomizations were applied to deidentified data from two sources, a UK biobank and FinnGen, a Finnish-based project for identifying genotype-to-phenotype correlations. Genetic proxies for these variables were established on the basis of genomewide association studies on large population samples.
Ultimately, 34 genetic variants were selected to proxy for lipid lowering by PCSK9, 19 were selected to proxy for HMG-CoA reductase, and 9 for NPC1L1. In the Mendelian analyses performed on the two sources, genetically proxied PCSK9 inhibition was associated with about a 30% reduction in the odds ratio of psoriasis (OR, 0.69; P = .003). There were no robust associations with proxies for reductions in either HMG-CoA reductase or NPC1L1.
In sensitivity analyses, there was no evidence of bias from pleiotropy or genetic confounding, according to Dr. Zhao and his coauthors, who noted that the relationship between reductions in PCSK9 and reduced risk of psoriasis appeared to be independent of change in circulating LDL-C.
Given the prior evidence implicating the PCSK9 enzyme in psoriasis risk, “this is an exciting study that really highlights the importance of studying and targeting lipid metabolism in psoriasis for a few reasons,” according to Michael S. Garshick, MD, a researcher, cardiologist, and director of the cardio-rheumatology program, New York University Langone Health.
An investigator who has participated in several studies evaluating the relationship between cardiovascular risk and psoriasis, Dr. Garshick said there is increasing interest in PCSK9 as a biomarker or even a mediator of inflammation independent of blood lipid levels.
“In psoriasis regarding PCSK9, we and others have shown PCSK9 is elevated in psoriatic lesion skin, and studies are starting to investigate the unique lipidomic profile in psoriasis,” Dr. Garshick said in an interview. The study he led that showed elevated PCSK9 levels in psoriatic skin was published in 2021 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
While the Mendelian randomization provides only “an inference” that PCSK9 plays a role in mediating risk of psoriasis, Dr. Zhao and coauthors cited numerous studies linking elevated PCSK9 to psoriasis pathophysiology. This not only includes the elevated PCSK9 expression in psoriatic plaques as shown by Dr. Garshick and others but several sets of experimental evidence linking PCSK9 to inflammatory pathways, including upregulation of interleukin-17 and stimulation of macrophage activation.
While Dr. Zhao and coauthors suggested that clinical trials are now needed to test the potential of PCSK9 inhibitors to modify the risk of psoriasis, Dr. Garshick indicated that there are numerous variables to unravel in the relationship between elevated lipids, PCSK9, and psoriasis.
“In our own studies, we did see a statistical correlation between circulating PCSK9 and psoriasis severity,” Dr. Garshick said. But he added, “I think we are just beginning to understand the functions of circulating (extrahepatic) PCSK9 independent of lipid metabolism.”
While he is intrigued by the evidence that PCSK9 is linked to systemic inflammation, he pointed out that several medications used to treat dyslipidemias, such as statins, are associated with an anti-inflammatory effect.
This study “further emphasizes the need to conduct clinical trials treating dyslipidemia in psoriasis, including the targeting of PCSK9, whether it is with statins with lipid lowering and potential pleiotropic anti-inflammatory properties or PCSK9 inhibition,” he said. If positive, “both would be exciting.“
From a cardiologist’s point of view, there is an upside for including patients with psoriasis in lipid-lowering trials even if the effect on psoriasis is modest. Either way, “you still get the lipid-lowering benefit, which is important for reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Garshick said.
Dr. Zhao reported financial relationships with UCB, although UCB did not provide funding for this study. One author reported grants from Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre during the study, grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Pfizer, and personal fees from Chugai Roche outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. The study was supported by grants from Versus Arthritis and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Garshick reported financial relationships with AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
High HDL-C levels linked to increased fracture risk
High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.
“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”
After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.
Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Independent risk factor
For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.
ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.
The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.
Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.
Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.
In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).
Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.
The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).
No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.
The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
Clinically useful?
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”
In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”
Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”
“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.
John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.
They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.
Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.
“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”
No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.
“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”
After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.
Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Independent risk factor
For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.
ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.
The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.
Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.
Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.
In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).
Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.
The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).
No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.
The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
Clinically useful?
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”
In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”
Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”
“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.
John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.
They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.
Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.
“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”
No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.
“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”
After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.
Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Independent risk factor
For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.
ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.
The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.
Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.
Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.
In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).
Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.
The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).
No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.
The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
Clinically useful?
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”
In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”
Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”
“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.
John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.
They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.
Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.
“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”
No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
PCSK9 inhibitors for severe COVID? Pilot trial signals of benefit
PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.
In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).
Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories
Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.
and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.
Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”
If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.
In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.
But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
A single injection
The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.
They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.
Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.
Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.
The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.
Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).
A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.
Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”
Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.
In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).
Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories
Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.
and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.
Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”
If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.
In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.
But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
A single injection
The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.
They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.
Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.
Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.
The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.
Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).
A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.
Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”
Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.
In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).
Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories
Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.
and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.
Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”
If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.
In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.
But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
A single injection
The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.
They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.
Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.
Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.
The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.
Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).
A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.
Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”
Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Size of meals, not timing, linked to weight loss
The number of daily meals, but not the timing between first and last daily meals, was significantly associated with weight changes over a 6-year period, in a prospective study of more than 500 adults.
Some studies suggest that timing food intake – through time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting – can promote weight loss, but these strategies have yielded similar weight loss to eating throughout the day in randomized trials, and population-based studies of meal intervals and weight changes are needed, Di Zhao, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Obesity is an epidemic,” corresponding author Wendy Bennett, MD, also of Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview. “We are interested in identifying ways to prevent weight gain over time and reduce obesity risk, since telling people to ‘just eat less’ doesn’t always work.”
In a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the researchers recruited 1,017 adults who were patients at one of three health systems; of these, complete data were available for 547 individuals.
The participants downloaded an app called Daily24 to record the timing of their meals and sleep for at least 1 day. The researchers used electronic medical records to obtain information on weight and comorbidities of the participants for up to 10 years before study enrollment through 10 months after enrollment.
The mean age of the participants was 51.1 years, 78% were women, and 78% were White; the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m2.
The mean interval from first to last meal was 11.5 hours, and this was not associated with change in weight. The mean times from waking up to the first meal and the time from the last meal to sleeping were 1.6 hours and 4.0 hours, respectively, and these were not associated with weight changes over the follow-up period, the researchers wrote. Sleep duration (mean of 7.5 hours) also was not associated with weight change over time.
However, the total daily number of large and medium-sized meals was associated with weight gain over time, while those who reported more smaller meals showed weight loss. A daily increase of one large, medium, or small meal was associated with an average annual weight change of 0.69 kg, 0.97 kg, and –0.30 kg, respectively.
Benefits of time-restricted eating remain unclear
“Animal studies have shown benefits for time restricted feeding, but there are still questions about whether or not it helps prevent weight gain or promotes weight loss in humans,” Dr. Bennett said in an interview.
As for the current study findings, “we were not surprised; humans are more complicated than animals, and we have complicated behaviors, especially with eating,” she said.
“We showed that windows of eating (eating for longer periods of time or less in a day) was not associated with weight change over time among patients from three health systems,” said Dr. Bennett. “The main implication is that restricting your window of eating, such as eating over less time, or having more fasting time, may not reduce weight gain over time, while eating fewer large meals is associated with less weight gain over time.”
The findings were limited by several factors including the exclusion of many younger and less educated individuals, the short follow-up period, and lack of information on weight loss intention at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to evaluate time-restricted eating or fasting, and the inclusion of individuals currently seeking care, which may limit generalizability.
However, the results were strengthened by the repeated measures of weight, detailed information on obesity risk factors, and real-time assessment of eating behaviors. The results do not support time-restricted eating as a long-term weight-loss strategy, and more studies are needed with a longer follow-up period, the researchers concluded.
However, there may be a role for time restricted eating as a method of total calorie control, Dr. Bennett said.
“Other studies do show that people might be able to use time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting to help them reduce their caloric intake and thus lose weight, so it can still be a helpful weight loss tool for some people who can adhere to it,” she said.
The study was supported by a grant from the American Heart Association to Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bennett had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The number of daily meals, but not the timing between first and last daily meals, was significantly associated with weight changes over a 6-year period, in a prospective study of more than 500 adults.
Some studies suggest that timing food intake – through time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting – can promote weight loss, but these strategies have yielded similar weight loss to eating throughout the day in randomized trials, and population-based studies of meal intervals and weight changes are needed, Di Zhao, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Obesity is an epidemic,” corresponding author Wendy Bennett, MD, also of Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview. “We are interested in identifying ways to prevent weight gain over time and reduce obesity risk, since telling people to ‘just eat less’ doesn’t always work.”
In a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the researchers recruited 1,017 adults who were patients at one of three health systems; of these, complete data were available for 547 individuals.
The participants downloaded an app called Daily24 to record the timing of their meals and sleep for at least 1 day. The researchers used electronic medical records to obtain information on weight and comorbidities of the participants for up to 10 years before study enrollment through 10 months after enrollment.
The mean age of the participants was 51.1 years, 78% were women, and 78% were White; the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m2.
The mean interval from first to last meal was 11.5 hours, and this was not associated with change in weight. The mean times from waking up to the first meal and the time from the last meal to sleeping were 1.6 hours and 4.0 hours, respectively, and these were not associated with weight changes over the follow-up period, the researchers wrote. Sleep duration (mean of 7.5 hours) also was not associated with weight change over time.
However, the total daily number of large and medium-sized meals was associated with weight gain over time, while those who reported more smaller meals showed weight loss. A daily increase of one large, medium, or small meal was associated with an average annual weight change of 0.69 kg, 0.97 kg, and –0.30 kg, respectively.
Benefits of time-restricted eating remain unclear
“Animal studies have shown benefits for time restricted feeding, but there are still questions about whether or not it helps prevent weight gain or promotes weight loss in humans,” Dr. Bennett said in an interview.
As for the current study findings, “we were not surprised; humans are more complicated than animals, and we have complicated behaviors, especially with eating,” she said.
“We showed that windows of eating (eating for longer periods of time or less in a day) was not associated with weight change over time among patients from three health systems,” said Dr. Bennett. “The main implication is that restricting your window of eating, such as eating over less time, or having more fasting time, may not reduce weight gain over time, while eating fewer large meals is associated with less weight gain over time.”
The findings were limited by several factors including the exclusion of many younger and less educated individuals, the short follow-up period, and lack of information on weight loss intention at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to evaluate time-restricted eating or fasting, and the inclusion of individuals currently seeking care, which may limit generalizability.
However, the results were strengthened by the repeated measures of weight, detailed information on obesity risk factors, and real-time assessment of eating behaviors. The results do not support time-restricted eating as a long-term weight-loss strategy, and more studies are needed with a longer follow-up period, the researchers concluded.
However, there may be a role for time restricted eating as a method of total calorie control, Dr. Bennett said.
“Other studies do show that people might be able to use time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting to help them reduce their caloric intake and thus lose weight, so it can still be a helpful weight loss tool for some people who can adhere to it,” she said.
The study was supported by a grant from the American Heart Association to Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bennett had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The number of daily meals, but not the timing between first and last daily meals, was significantly associated with weight changes over a 6-year period, in a prospective study of more than 500 adults.
Some studies suggest that timing food intake – through time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting – can promote weight loss, but these strategies have yielded similar weight loss to eating throughout the day in randomized trials, and population-based studies of meal intervals and weight changes are needed, Di Zhao, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Obesity is an epidemic,” corresponding author Wendy Bennett, MD, also of Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview. “We are interested in identifying ways to prevent weight gain over time and reduce obesity risk, since telling people to ‘just eat less’ doesn’t always work.”
In a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the researchers recruited 1,017 adults who were patients at one of three health systems; of these, complete data were available for 547 individuals.
The participants downloaded an app called Daily24 to record the timing of their meals and sleep for at least 1 day. The researchers used electronic medical records to obtain information on weight and comorbidities of the participants for up to 10 years before study enrollment through 10 months after enrollment.
The mean age of the participants was 51.1 years, 78% were women, and 78% were White; the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m2.
The mean interval from first to last meal was 11.5 hours, and this was not associated with change in weight. The mean times from waking up to the first meal and the time from the last meal to sleeping were 1.6 hours and 4.0 hours, respectively, and these were not associated with weight changes over the follow-up period, the researchers wrote. Sleep duration (mean of 7.5 hours) also was not associated with weight change over time.
However, the total daily number of large and medium-sized meals was associated with weight gain over time, while those who reported more smaller meals showed weight loss. A daily increase of one large, medium, or small meal was associated with an average annual weight change of 0.69 kg, 0.97 kg, and –0.30 kg, respectively.
Benefits of time-restricted eating remain unclear
“Animal studies have shown benefits for time restricted feeding, but there are still questions about whether or not it helps prevent weight gain or promotes weight loss in humans,” Dr. Bennett said in an interview.
As for the current study findings, “we were not surprised; humans are more complicated than animals, and we have complicated behaviors, especially with eating,” she said.
“We showed that windows of eating (eating for longer periods of time or less in a day) was not associated with weight change over time among patients from three health systems,” said Dr. Bennett. “The main implication is that restricting your window of eating, such as eating over less time, or having more fasting time, may not reduce weight gain over time, while eating fewer large meals is associated with less weight gain over time.”
The findings were limited by several factors including the exclusion of many younger and less educated individuals, the short follow-up period, and lack of information on weight loss intention at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to evaluate time-restricted eating or fasting, and the inclusion of individuals currently seeking care, which may limit generalizability.
However, the results were strengthened by the repeated measures of weight, detailed information on obesity risk factors, and real-time assessment of eating behaviors. The results do not support time-restricted eating as a long-term weight-loss strategy, and more studies are needed with a longer follow-up period, the researchers concluded.
However, there may be a role for time restricted eating as a method of total calorie control, Dr. Bennett said.
“Other studies do show that people might be able to use time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting to help them reduce their caloric intake and thus lose weight, so it can still be a helpful weight loss tool for some people who can adhere to it,” she said.
The study was supported by a grant from the American Heart Association to Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bennett had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION