Lipid Disorders

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

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

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

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

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

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

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

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

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

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

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

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

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

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

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

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

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

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

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

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

MNP Exposure

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

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

MNP and Biologic Systems

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

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

Between Risk and Toxicity

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

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

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

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

Future Scenarios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MNP Exposure

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

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

MNP and Biologic Systems

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

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

Between Risk and Toxicity

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

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

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

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

Future Scenarios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MNP Exposure

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

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

MNP and Biologic Systems

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

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

Between Risk and Toxicity

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

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

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

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

Future Scenarios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple Ways to Slice the Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Red Meat Good or Bad?

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

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

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

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

Specification Curve Analyses Results 

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

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

Paradigm Changing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple Ways to Slice the Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Red Meat Good or Bad?

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

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

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

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

Specification Curve Analyses Results 

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

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

Paradigm Changing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple Ways to Slice the Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Red Meat Good or Bad?

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

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

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

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

Specification Curve Analyses Results 

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

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

Paradigm Changing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
• They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.

• In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).

• Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
• They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.

• In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).

• Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
• They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.

• In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).

• Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ATLANTA — A novel antisense therapy called olezarsen reduced triglycerides (TGs) by approximately 50% with either of the two study doses relative to placebo and did so with a low relative risk for adverse events, new data from a phase 2b trial showed.

“The reduction in triglycerides was greater than that currently possible with any available therapy,” reported Brian A. Bergmark, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The drug also produced meaningful improvements in multiple other lipid subfractions associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, including ApoC-III, very low–density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, ApoB, and non-LDL cholesterol. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels were significantly raised.

The results were presented on April 7 as a late breaker at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024 and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No Major Subgroup Failed to Respond

The effect was seen across all the key subgroups evaluated, including women and patients with diabetes, obesity, and severe as well as moderate elevations in TGs at baseline, Dr. Bergmark reported.

Olezarsen is a N-acetylgalactosamine–conjugated antisense oligonucleotide targeting APOC3 RNA. The results of this randomized trial, called BRIDGE-TIMI 73a, are consistent with other evidence that inhibiting expression of ApoC-III lowers the levels of TGs and other lipid subfractions to a degree that would predict clinical benefit.

In this study, 154 patients at 24 sites in North America were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 50 or 80 mg olezarsen. Those in each of these cohorts were then randomized in a 3:1 ratio to active therapy or placebo. All therapies were administered by subcutaneous injection once per month.

Patients were eligible for the trial if they had moderate hypertriglyceridemia, defined as a level of 150-499 mg/dL, and elevated CV risk or if they had severe hypertriglyceridemia (≥ 500 mg/dL) with or without other evidence of elevated CV risk. The primary endpoint was a change in TGs at 6 months. Complete follow-up was available in about 97% of patients regardless of treatment assignment.

With a slight numerical advantage for the higher dose, the TG reductions were 49.1% for the 50-mg dose and 53.1% for the 80-mg dose relative to no significant change in the placebo group (P < .001 for both olezarsen doses). The reductions in ApoC-III, an upstream driver of TG production and a CV risk factor, were 64.2% and 73.2% relative to placebo (both P < .001), respectively, Dr. Bergmark reported.

In those with moderate hypertriglyceridemia, normal TG levels, defined as < 150 mg/dL, were reached at 6 months in 85.7% and 93.3% in the 40-mg and 80-mg dose groups, respectively. Relative to these reductions, normalization was seen in only 11.8% of placebo patients (P < .001).
 

TG Lowering Might Not Be Best Endpoint

The primary endpoint in this trial was a change in TGs, but this target was questioned by an invited ACC discussant, Daniel Soffer, MD, who is both an adjunct professor assistant professor of medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, and current president of the National Lipid Association.

Dr. Soffer noted that highly elevated TGs are a major risk factor for acute pancreatitis, so this predicts a clinical benefit for this purpose, but he thought the other lipid subfractions are far more important for the goal of reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Indeed, he said categorically that it is not TGs that drive ASCVD risk and therefore not what is the real importance of these data. Rather, “it is the non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB lowering” that will drive the likely benefits from this therapy in CV disease.

In addition to the TG reductions, olezarsen did, in fact, produce significant reductions in many of the lipid subfractions associated with increased CV risk. While slightly more favorable in most cases with the higher dose of olezarsen, even the lower dose reduced Apo C-III from baseline by 64.2% (P < .001), VLDL by 46.2% (P < .001), remnant cholesterol by 46.6% (P < .001), ApoB by 18.2% (P < .001), and non-HDL cholesterol by 25.4% (P < .001). HDL cholesterol was increased by 39.6% (P < .001).

These favorable effects on TG and other lipid subfractions were achieved with a safety profile that was reassuring, Dr. Bergmark said. Serious adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 0%, 1.7%, and 1.8% of the placebo, lower-dose, and higher-dose arms, respectively. These rates did not differ significantly.
 

Increased Liver Enzymes Is Common

Liver enzymes were significantly elevated (P < .001) for both doses of olezarsen vs placebo, but liver enzymes > 3× the upper limit of normal did not reach significance on either dose of olezarsen relative to placebo. Low platelet counts and reductions in kidney function were observed in a minority of patients but were generally manageable, according to Dr. Bergmark. There was no impact on hemoglobin A1c levels.

Further evaluation of change in hepatic function is planned in the ongoing extension studies.

Characterizing these results as “exciting,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, a member of the Duke Clinical Research Institute and an assistant professor at the Duke School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, said that identifying a drug effective for hypertriglyceridemia is likely to be a major advance. While elevated TGs are “one of the toughest” lipid abnormalities to manage, “there is not much out there to offer for treatment.”

She, like Dr. Soffer, was encouraged by the favorable effects on multiple lipid abnormalities associated with increased CV risk, but she said the ultimate clinical utility of this or other agents that lower TGs for ASCVD requires a study showing a change in CV events.

Dr. Bergmark reported financial relationships with 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Ionis, which provided funding for the BRIDGE-TIMI 73a trial. Soffer had financial relationships with Akcea, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Verve. Dr. Pagidipati had financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies but was not involved in the design of management of the BRIDGE-TIMI 73a trial.

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

ATLANTA — A novel antisense therapy called olezarsen reduced triglycerides (TGs) by approximately 50% with either of the two study doses relative to placebo and did so with a low relative risk for adverse events, new data from a phase 2b trial showed.

“The reduction in triglycerides was greater than that currently possible with any available therapy,” reported Brian A. Bergmark, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The drug also produced meaningful improvements in multiple other lipid subfractions associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, including ApoC-III, very low–density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, ApoB, and non-LDL cholesterol. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels were significantly raised.

The results were presented on April 7 as a late breaker at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024 and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No Major Subgroup Failed to Respond

The effect was seen across all the key subgroups evaluated, including women and patients with diabetes, obesity, and severe as well as moderate elevations in TGs at baseline, Dr. Bergmark reported.

Olezarsen is a N-acetylgalactosamine–conjugated antisense oligonucleotide targeting APOC3 RNA. The results of this randomized trial, called BRIDGE-TIMI 73a, are consistent with other evidence that inhibiting expression of ApoC-III lowers the levels of TGs and other lipid subfractions to a degree that would predict clinical benefit.

In this study, 154 patients at 24 sites in North America were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 50 or 80 mg olezarsen. Those in each of these cohorts were then randomized in a 3:1 ratio to active therapy or placebo. All therapies were administered by subcutaneous injection once per month.

Patients were eligible for the trial if they had moderate hypertriglyceridemia, defined as a level of 150-499 mg/dL, and elevated CV risk or if they had severe hypertriglyceridemia (≥ 500 mg/dL) with or without other evidence of elevated CV risk. The primary endpoint was a change in TGs at 6 months. Complete follow-up was available in about 97% of patients regardless of treatment assignment.

With a slight numerical advantage for the higher dose, the TG reductions were 49.1% for the 50-mg dose and 53.1% for the 80-mg dose relative to no significant change in the placebo group (P < .001 for both olezarsen doses). The reductions in ApoC-III, an upstream driver of TG production and a CV risk factor, were 64.2% and 73.2% relative to placebo (both P < .001), respectively, Dr. Bergmark reported.

In those with moderate hypertriglyceridemia, normal TG levels, defined as < 150 mg/dL, were reached at 6 months in 85.7% and 93.3% in the 40-mg and 80-mg dose groups, respectively. Relative to these reductions, normalization was seen in only 11.8% of placebo patients (P < .001).
 

TG Lowering Might Not Be Best Endpoint

The primary endpoint in this trial was a change in TGs, but this target was questioned by an invited ACC discussant, Daniel Soffer, MD, who is both an adjunct professor assistant professor of medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, and current president of the National Lipid Association.

Dr. Soffer noted that highly elevated TGs are a major risk factor for acute pancreatitis, so this predicts a clinical benefit for this purpose, but he thought the other lipid subfractions are far more important for the goal of reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Indeed, he said categorically that it is not TGs that drive ASCVD risk and therefore not what is the real importance of these data. Rather, “it is the non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB lowering” that will drive the likely benefits from this therapy in CV disease.

In addition to the TG reductions, olezarsen did, in fact, produce significant reductions in many of the lipid subfractions associated with increased CV risk. While slightly more favorable in most cases with the higher dose of olezarsen, even the lower dose reduced Apo C-III from baseline by 64.2% (P < .001), VLDL by 46.2% (P < .001), remnant cholesterol by 46.6% (P < .001), ApoB by 18.2% (P < .001), and non-HDL cholesterol by 25.4% (P < .001). HDL cholesterol was increased by 39.6% (P < .001).

These favorable effects on TG and other lipid subfractions were achieved with a safety profile that was reassuring, Dr. Bergmark said. Serious adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 0%, 1.7%, and 1.8% of the placebo, lower-dose, and higher-dose arms, respectively. These rates did not differ significantly.
 

Increased Liver Enzymes Is Common

Liver enzymes were significantly elevated (P < .001) for both doses of olezarsen vs placebo, but liver enzymes > 3× the upper limit of normal did not reach significance on either dose of olezarsen relative to placebo. Low platelet counts and reductions in kidney function were observed in a minority of patients but were generally manageable, according to Dr. Bergmark. There was no impact on hemoglobin A1c levels.

Further evaluation of change in hepatic function is planned in the ongoing extension studies.

Characterizing these results as “exciting,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, a member of the Duke Clinical Research Institute and an assistant professor at the Duke School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, said that identifying a drug effective for hypertriglyceridemia is likely to be a major advance. While elevated TGs are “one of the toughest” lipid abnormalities to manage, “there is not much out there to offer for treatment.”

She, like Dr. Soffer, was encouraged by the favorable effects on multiple lipid abnormalities associated with increased CV risk, but she said the ultimate clinical utility of this or other agents that lower TGs for ASCVD requires a study showing a change in CV events.

Dr. Bergmark reported financial relationships with 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Ionis, which provided funding for the BRIDGE-TIMI 73a trial. Soffer had financial relationships with Akcea, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Verve. Dr. Pagidipati had financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies but was not involved in the design of management of the BRIDGE-TIMI 73a trial.

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

ATLANTA — A novel antisense therapy called olezarsen reduced triglycerides (TGs) by approximately 50% with either of the two study doses relative to placebo and did so with a low relative risk for adverse events, new data from a phase 2b trial showed.

“The reduction in triglycerides was greater than that currently possible with any available therapy,” reported Brian A. Bergmark, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The drug also produced meaningful improvements in multiple other lipid subfractions associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, including ApoC-III, very low–density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, ApoB, and non-LDL cholesterol. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels were significantly raised.

The results were presented on April 7 as a late breaker at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024 and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No Major Subgroup Failed to Respond

The effect was seen across all the key subgroups evaluated, including women and patients with diabetes, obesity, and severe as well as moderate elevations in TGs at baseline, Dr. Bergmark reported.

Olezarsen is a N-acetylgalactosamine–conjugated antisense oligonucleotide targeting APOC3 RNA. The results of this randomized trial, called BRIDGE-TIMI 73a, are consistent with other evidence that inhibiting expression of ApoC-III lowers the levels of TGs and other lipid subfractions to a degree that would predict clinical benefit.

In this study, 154 patients at 24 sites in North America were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 50 or 80 mg olezarsen. Those in each of these cohorts were then randomized in a 3:1 ratio to active therapy or placebo. All therapies were administered by subcutaneous injection once per month.

Patients were eligible for the trial if they had moderate hypertriglyceridemia, defined as a level of 150-499 mg/dL, and elevated CV risk or if they had severe hypertriglyceridemia (≥ 500 mg/dL) with or without other evidence of elevated CV risk. The primary endpoint was a change in TGs at 6 months. Complete follow-up was available in about 97% of patients regardless of treatment assignment.

With a slight numerical advantage for the higher dose, the TG reductions were 49.1% for the 50-mg dose and 53.1% for the 80-mg dose relative to no significant change in the placebo group (P < .001 for both olezarsen doses). The reductions in ApoC-III, an upstream driver of TG production and a CV risk factor, were 64.2% and 73.2% relative to placebo (both P < .001), respectively, Dr. Bergmark reported.

In those with moderate hypertriglyceridemia, normal TG levels, defined as < 150 mg/dL, were reached at 6 months in 85.7% and 93.3% in the 40-mg and 80-mg dose groups, respectively. Relative to these reductions, normalization was seen in only 11.8% of placebo patients (P < .001).
 

TG Lowering Might Not Be Best Endpoint

The primary endpoint in this trial was a change in TGs, but this target was questioned by an invited ACC discussant, Daniel Soffer, MD, who is both an adjunct professor assistant professor of medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, and current president of the National Lipid Association.

Dr. Soffer noted that highly elevated TGs are a major risk factor for acute pancreatitis, so this predicts a clinical benefit for this purpose, but he thought the other lipid subfractions are far more important for the goal of reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Indeed, he said categorically that it is not TGs that drive ASCVD risk and therefore not what is the real importance of these data. Rather, “it is the non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB lowering” that will drive the likely benefits from this therapy in CV disease.

In addition to the TG reductions, olezarsen did, in fact, produce significant reductions in many of the lipid subfractions associated with increased CV risk. While slightly more favorable in most cases with the higher dose of olezarsen, even the lower dose reduced Apo C-III from baseline by 64.2% (P < .001), VLDL by 46.2% (P < .001), remnant cholesterol by 46.6% (P < .001), ApoB by 18.2% (P < .001), and non-HDL cholesterol by 25.4% (P < .001). HDL cholesterol was increased by 39.6% (P < .001).

These favorable effects on TG and other lipid subfractions were achieved with a safety profile that was reassuring, Dr. Bergmark said. Serious adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 0%, 1.7%, and 1.8% of the placebo, lower-dose, and higher-dose arms, respectively. These rates did not differ significantly.
 

Increased Liver Enzymes Is Common

Liver enzymes were significantly elevated (P < .001) for both doses of olezarsen vs placebo, but liver enzymes > 3× the upper limit of normal did not reach significance on either dose of olezarsen relative to placebo. Low platelet counts and reductions in kidney function were observed in a minority of patients but were generally manageable, according to Dr. Bergmark. There was no impact on hemoglobin A1c levels.

Further evaluation of change in hepatic function is planned in the ongoing extension studies.

Characterizing these results as “exciting,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, a member of the Duke Clinical Research Institute and an assistant professor at the Duke School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, said that identifying a drug effective for hypertriglyceridemia is likely to be a major advance. While elevated TGs are “one of the toughest” lipid abnormalities to manage, “there is not much out there to offer for treatment.”

She, like Dr. Soffer, was encouraged by the favorable effects on multiple lipid abnormalities associated with increased CV risk, but she said the ultimate clinical utility of this or other agents that lower TGs for ASCVD requires a study showing a change in CV events.

Dr. Bergmark reported financial relationships with 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Ionis, which provided funding for the BRIDGE-TIMI 73a trial. Soffer had financial relationships with Akcea, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Verve. Dr. Pagidipati had financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies but was not involved in the design of management of the BRIDGE-TIMI 73a trial.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Silence Therapeutics shared positive topline 36-week data from its ongoing phase 2 study of zerlasiran, a long-acting agent directed at lowering Lp(a) levels. 

In a statement, the company said the study shows a highly significant reduction from baseline in Lp(a) levels with zerlasiran compared with placebo at 36 weeks, the primary endpoint.

Zerlasiran (formerly known as SLN360), is a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “ gene silencing” therapy. It binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene which encodes for apolipoprotein(a), a dominant and a rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

A previous phase 1 study showed that single subcutaneous doses of the drug, ranging from 30 mg to 600 mg, produced a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels at 45-60 days.

The current double-blind placebo-controlled phase 2 trial — known as ALPACAR-360 — enrolled 178 patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events who had elevated levels of Lp(a), ie, ≥ 125 nmol/L (median baseline Lp(a) was approximately 215 nmol/L). They were randomized to zerlasiran or placebo. 

Zerlasiran was administered at 300 mg subcutaneously every 16 or 24 weeks or at 450 mg every 24 weeks. 

Results reported by the company show a median percentage reduction in Lp(a) of ≥ 90% for both doses at week 36, with no new safety concerns identified during this treatment period.

The 60-week study is ongoing, and secondary endpoints, including change in Lp(a) from baseline to 48 weeks (end of treatment period) and 60 weeks (end of study) and potential effects on other lipids/lipoproteins, will be evaluated.

Silence says it plans to report topline 48-week data from the ALPACAR-360 study in the second quarter of this year.

Elevated levels of Lp(a) represent a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is believed to affect approximately 20% of the population. Although there are currently no approved Lp(a)-lowering therapies, several drug candidates are in late-stage clinical testing.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Silence Therapeutics shared positive topline 36-week data from its ongoing phase 2 study of zerlasiran, a long-acting agent directed at lowering Lp(a) levels. 

In a statement, the company said the study shows a highly significant reduction from baseline in Lp(a) levels with zerlasiran compared with placebo at 36 weeks, the primary endpoint.

Zerlasiran (formerly known as SLN360), is a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “ gene silencing” therapy. It binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene which encodes for apolipoprotein(a), a dominant and a rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

A previous phase 1 study showed that single subcutaneous doses of the drug, ranging from 30 mg to 600 mg, produced a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels at 45-60 days.

The current double-blind placebo-controlled phase 2 trial — known as ALPACAR-360 — enrolled 178 patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events who had elevated levels of Lp(a), ie, ≥ 125 nmol/L (median baseline Lp(a) was approximately 215 nmol/L). They were randomized to zerlasiran or placebo. 

Zerlasiran was administered at 300 mg subcutaneously every 16 or 24 weeks or at 450 mg every 24 weeks. 

Results reported by the company show a median percentage reduction in Lp(a) of ≥ 90% for both doses at week 36, with no new safety concerns identified during this treatment period.

The 60-week study is ongoing, and secondary endpoints, including change in Lp(a) from baseline to 48 weeks (end of treatment period) and 60 weeks (end of study) and potential effects on other lipids/lipoproteins, will be evaluated.

Silence says it plans to report topline 48-week data from the ALPACAR-360 study in the second quarter of this year.

Elevated levels of Lp(a) represent a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is believed to affect approximately 20% of the population. Although there are currently no approved Lp(a)-lowering therapies, several drug candidates are in late-stage clinical testing.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Silence Therapeutics shared positive topline 36-week data from its ongoing phase 2 study of zerlasiran, a long-acting agent directed at lowering Lp(a) levels. 

In a statement, the company said the study shows a highly significant reduction from baseline in Lp(a) levels with zerlasiran compared with placebo at 36 weeks, the primary endpoint.

Zerlasiran (formerly known as SLN360), is a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “ gene silencing” therapy. It binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene which encodes for apolipoprotein(a), a dominant and a rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

A previous phase 1 study showed that single subcutaneous doses of the drug, ranging from 30 mg to 600 mg, produced a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels at 45-60 days.

The current double-blind placebo-controlled phase 2 trial — known as ALPACAR-360 — enrolled 178 patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events who had elevated levels of Lp(a), ie, ≥ 125 nmol/L (median baseline Lp(a) was approximately 215 nmol/L). They were randomized to zerlasiran or placebo. 

Zerlasiran was administered at 300 mg subcutaneously every 16 or 24 weeks or at 450 mg every 24 weeks. 

Results reported by the company show a median percentage reduction in Lp(a) of ≥ 90% for both doses at week 36, with no new safety concerns identified during this treatment period.

The 60-week study is ongoing, and secondary endpoints, including change in Lp(a) from baseline to 48 weeks (end of treatment period) and 60 weeks (end of study) and potential effects on other lipids/lipoproteins, will be evaluated.

Silence says it plans to report topline 48-week data from the ALPACAR-360 study in the second quarter of this year.

Elevated levels of Lp(a) represent a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is believed to affect approximately 20% of the population. Although there are currently no approved Lp(a)-lowering therapies, several drug candidates are in late-stage clinical testing.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.