Lipid Disorders

Clinicians are well aware of the benefits of physical activity and the consequences of inactivity. 

Managing the diseases associated with inactivity – heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension – falls to physicians. So one might assume they routinely prescribe exercise to their patients, just as they would statins, insulin, or beta-blockers. 

But evidence indicates that doctors don’t routinely have those conversations. They may lack confidence in their ability to give effective advice, fear offending patients, or simply not know what to say.

That’s understandable. Many doctors receive little training on how to counsel patients to exercise, according to research over the past decade. Despite efforts to improve this, many medical students still feel unprepared to prescribe physical activity to patients.

But here’s the thing: Doctors are in a unique position to change things.

Only 28% of Americans meet physical activity guidelines, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the same time, other research suggests that patients want to be more active and would like help from their doctor.

“Patients are motivated to hear about physical activity from physicians and try to make a change,” says Jane Thornton, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in family medicine at Western University, Ont. “Just saying something, even if you don’t have specialized knowledge, makes a difference because of the credibility we have as physicians.”

Conveniently, just like exercise, the best way to get started is to ... get started.

Here’s how to break down the process into steps.
 

1. Ask patients about their physical activity

Think of this as taking any kind of patient history, only for physical activity.

Do they have a regular exercise routine? For how many minutes a day are they active? How many days a week?

“It takes less than a minute to ask and record,” Dr. Thornton says. Once you put it into the patient’s electronic record, you have something you can track.
 

2. Write an actual prescription

By giving the patient a written, printed prescription when they leave your office, “you’re showing it’s an important part of treatment or prevention,” Dr. Thornton explains. It puts physical activity on the level of a vital sign.

Include frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise. The American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise is Medicine initiative provides a prescription template you can use.
 

3. Measure what they do

Measurement helps the patient adopt the new behavior, and it helps the physician provide tailored advice going forward, Dr. Thornton says.

With the rise of health-monitoring wearables, tracking activity has never been easier. Of course, not everyone wants to (or can afford to) use a smartwatch or fitness tracker.

For tech-averse patients, ask if they’re willing to write something down, like how many minutes they spent walking, or how many yoga classes they attended. You may never get this from some patients, but it never hurts to ask.
 

4. Refer out when necessary

This brings us to a sticky issue for many physicians: lack of confidence in their ability to speak authoritatively about physical activity. “In most cases, you can absolutely say, ‘Start slow, go gradually,’ that kind of thing,” Dr. Thornton says. “As with anything, confidence will come with practice.”

For specific prescriptive advice, check out the Exercise is Medicine website, which also has handouts you can share with patients and information for specific conditions. If your patient has prediabetes, you can also point them toward the CDC’s diabetes prevention program, which is available in-person or online and may be free or covered by insurance.

If a patient has contraindications, refer out. If you don’t have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, Dr. Thornton recommends reaching out to your regional or national association of sports-medicine professionals. You should be able to find it with a quick Google search.
 

5. Follow up

Ask about physical activity during every contact, either in person or online. 

Dr. Thornton says the second and fifth steps matter most to patients, especially when the prescription and follow-up come from their primary care physician, rather than a nurse or physician assistant to whom you’ve delegated the task.

“The value comes in having a physician emphasize the importance,” Dr. Thornton says. The more time you spend on it, the more that value comes through.
 

What NOT to say to patients about exercise

This might surprise you: 

“I definitely don’t think telling people the official recommendations for physical activity is useful,” says Yoni Freedhoff, MD, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. “If anything, I’d venture it’s counterproductive.”

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the recommended minimum – 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity per week. The problem is what it says to a patient who doesn’t come close to those standards. 

“Few real-world people have the interest, time, energy, or privilege to achieve them,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “Many will recognize that instantly and consequently feel [that] less than that is pointless.”

And that, Dr. Thornton says, is categorically not true. “Even minimal physical activity, in some cases, is beneficial.”

You also want to avoid any explicit connection between exercise and weight loss, Dr. Thornton says.

Though many people do connect the two, the link is often negative, notes a 2019 study from the University of Toronto., triggering painful memories that might go all the way back to gym class. 

Try this pivot from Dr. Freedhoff: “Focus on the role of exercise in mitigating the risks of weight,” he says – like decreasing pain, increasing energy, and improving sleep.
 

How to motivate patients to move

New research backs up this more positive approach. In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, doctors in the United Kingdom who emphasized benefits and minimized health harms convinced more patients to join a weight management program than negative or neutral docs did. These doctors conveyed optimism and excitement, smiling and avoiding any mention of obesity or body mass index.

Exactly what benefits inspire change will be different for each patient. But in general, the more immediate the benefit, the more motivating it will be. 

As the University of Toronto study noted, patients weren’t motivated by vague, distant goals like “increasing life expectancy or avoiding health problems many years in the future.”

They’re much more likely to take action to avoid surgery, reduce medications, or minimize the risk of falling. 

For an older patient, Dr. Freedhoff says, “focusing on the preservation of functional independence can be extremely motivating.” That’s especially true if the patient has vivid memories of seeing a sedentary loved one decline late in life. 

For patients who may be more focused on appearance, they could respond to the idea of improving their body composition. For that, “we talk about the quality of weight loss,” says Spencer Nadolsky, DO, an obesity and lipid specialist and medical director of WeightWatchers. “Ultimately, exercise helps shape the body instead of just changing the number on the scale.”
 

Reducing resistance to resistance training

A conversation about reshaping the body or avoiding age-related disabilities leads naturally to resistance training.  

“I always frame resistance training as the single most valuable thing a person might do to try to preserve their functional independence,” Dr. Freedhoff says. If the patient is over 65, he won’t wait for them to show an interest. “I’ll absolutely bring it up with them directly.”

Dr. Freedhoff has an on-site training facility where trainers show patients how to work out at home with minimal equipment, like dumbbells and resistance bands. 

Most doctors, however, don’t have those options. That can lead to a tricky conversation. Participants in the University of Toronto study told the authors they disliked the gym, finding it “boring, intimidating, or discouraging.” 

And yet, “a common suggestion ... from health care providers was to join a gym.”

Many patients, Spencer Nadolsky, MD, says, associate strength training with “grunting, groaning, or getting ‘bulky’ vs. ‘toned.’ ” Memories of soreness from overzealous workouts are another barrier.

He recommends “starting small and slow,” with one or two full-body workouts a week. Those initial workouts might include just one to two sets of four to five exercises. “Consider if someone is exercising at home or in a gym to build a routine around equipment that’s available to them,” Dr. Nadolsky says.

Once you determine what you have to work with, help the patient choose exercises that fit their needs, goals, preferences, limitations, and prior injuries.

One more consideration: While Dr. Nadolsky tries to “stay away from telling a patient they need to do specific types of exercise to be successful,” he makes an exception for patients who’re taking a GLP-1 agonist. “There is a concern for muscle mass loss along with fat loss.”
 

Practicing, preaching, and checking privilege

When Dr. Thornton, Dr. Freedhoff, and Dr. Nadolsky discuss exercise, their patients know they practice what they preach. 

Dr. Nadolsky, who was a nationally ranked wrestler at the University of North Carolina, hosts the Docs Who Lift podcast with his brother, Karl Nadolsky, MD. 

Dr. Freedhoff is also a lifter and fitness enthusiast, and Dr. Thornton was a world-class rower whose team came within 0.8 seconds of a silver medal at the Beijing Olympics. (They finished fourth.)

But not all physicians follow their own lifestyle advice, Dr. Freedhoff says. That doesn’t make them bad doctors – it makes them human.

“I’ve done 300 minutes a week of exercise” – the recommended amount for weight maintenance – “to see what’s involved,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “That’s far, far, far from a trivial amount.”

That leads to this advice for his fellow physicians:

“The most important thing to know about exercise is that finding the time and having the health to do so is a privilege,” he says. 

Understanding that is crucial for assessing your patient’s needs and providing the right help.

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

Clinicians are well aware of the benefits of physical activity and the consequences of inactivity. 

Managing the diseases associated with inactivity – heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension – falls to physicians. So one might assume they routinely prescribe exercise to their patients, just as they would statins, insulin, or beta-blockers. 

But evidence indicates that doctors don’t routinely have those conversations. They may lack confidence in their ability to give effective advice, fear offending patients, or simply not know what to say.

That’s understandable. Many doctors receive little training on how to counsel patients to exercise, according to research over the past decade. Despite efforts to improve this, many medical students still feel unprepared to prescribe physical activity to patients.

But here’s the thing: Doctors are in a unique position to change things.

Only 28% of Americans meet physical activity guidelines, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the same time, other research suggests that patients want to be more active and would like help from their doctor.

“Patients are motivated to hear about physical activity from physicians and try to make a change,” says Jane Thornton, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in family medicine at Western University, Ont. “Just saying something, even if you don’t have specialized knowledge, makes a difference because of the credibility we have as physicians.”

Conveniently, just like exercise, the best way to get started is to ... get started.

Here’s how to break down the process into steps.
 

1. Ask patients about their physical activity

Think of this as taking any kind of patient history, only for physical activity.

Do they have a regular exercise routine? For how many minutes a day are they active? How many days a week?

“It takes less than a minute to ask and record,” Dr. Thornton says. Once you put it into the patient’s electronic record, you have something you can track.
 

2. Write an actual prescription

By giving the patient a written, printed prescription when they leave your office, “you’re showing it’s an important part of treatment or prevention,” Dr. Thornton explains. It puts physical activity on the level of a vital sign.

Include frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise. The American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise is Medicine initiative provides a prescription template you can use.
 

3. Measure what they do

Measurement helps the patient adopt the new behavior, and it helps the physician provide tailored advice going forward, Dr. Thornton says.

With the rise of health-monitoring wearables, tracking activity has never been easier. Of course, not everyone wants to (or can afford to) use a smartwatch or fitness tracker.

For tech-averse patients, ask if they’re willing to write something down, like how many minutes they spent walking, or how many yoga classes they attended. You may never get this from some patients, but it never hurts to ask.
 

4. Refer out when necessary

This brings us to a sticky issue for many physicians: lack of confidence in their ability to speak authoritatively about physical activity. “In most cases, you can absolutely say, ‘Start slow, go gradually,’ that kind of thing,” Dr. Thornton says. “As with anything, confidence will come with practice.”

For specific prescriptive advice, check out the Exercise is Medicine website, which also has handouts you can share with patients and information for specific conditions. If your patient has prediabetes, you can also point them toward the CDC’s diabetes prevention program, which is available in-person or online and may be free or covered by insurance.

If a patient has contraindications, refer out. If you don’t have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, Dr. Thornton recommends reaching out to your regional or national association of sports-medicine professionals. You should be able to find it with a quick Google search.
 

5. Follow up

Ask about physical activity during every contact, either in person or online. 

Dr. Thornton says the second and fifth steps matter most to patients, especially when the prescription and follow-up come from their primary care physician, rather than a nurse or physician assistant to whom you’ve delegated the task.

“The value comes in having a physician emphasize the importance,” Dr. Thornton says. The more time you spend on it, the more that value comes through.
 

What NOT to say to patients about exercise

This might surprise you: 

“I definitely don’t think telling people the official recommendations for physical activity is useful,” says Yoni Freedhoff, MD, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. “If anything, I’d venture it’s counterproductive.”

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the recommended minimum – 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity per week. The problem is what it says to a patient who doesn’t come close to those standards. 

“Few real-world people have the interest, time, energy, or privilege to achieve them,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “Many will recognize that instantly and consequently feel [that] less than that is pointless.”

And that, Dr. Thornton says, is categorically not true. “Even minimal physical activity, in some cases, is beneficial.”

You also want to avoid any explicit connection between exercise and weight loss, Dr. Thornton says.

Though many people do connect the two, the link is often negative, notes a 2019 study from the University of Toronto., triggering painful memories that might go all the way back to gym class. 

Try this pivot from Dr. Freedhoff: “Focus on the role of exercise in mitigating the risks of weight,” he says – like decreasing pain, increasing energy, and improving sleep.
 

How to motivate patients to move

New research backs up this more positive approach. In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, doctors in the United Kingdom who emphasized benefits and minimized health harms convinced more patients to join a weight management program than negative or neutral docs did. These doctors conveyed optimism and excitement, smiling and avoiding any mention of obesity or body mass index.

Exactly what benefits inspire change will be different for each patient. But in general, the more immediate the benefit, the more motivating it will be. 

As the University of Toronto study noted, patients weren’t motivated by vague, distant goals like “increasing life expectancy or avoiding health problems many years in the future.”

They’re much more likely to take action to avoid surgery, reduce medications, or minimize the risk of falling. 

For an older patient, Dr. Freedhoff says, “focusing on the preservation of functional independence can be extremely motivating.” That’s especially true if the patient has vivid memories of seeing a sedentary loved one decline late in life. 

For patients who may be more focused on appearance, they could respond to the idea of improving their body composition. For that, “we talk about the quality of weight loss,” says Spencer Nadolsky, DO, an obesity and lipid specialist and medical director of WeightWatchers. “Ultimately, exercise helps shape the body instead of just changing the number on the scale.”
 

Reducing resistance to resistance training

A conversation about reshaping the body or avoiding age-related disabilities leads naturally to resistance training.  

“I always frame resistance training as the single most valuable thing a person might do to try to preserve their functional independence,” Dr. Freedhoff says. If the patient is over 65, he won’t wait for them to show an interest. “I’ll absolutely bring it up with them directly.”

Dr. Freedhoff has an on-site training facility where trainers show patients how to work out at home with minimal equipment, like dumbbells and resistance bands. 

Most doctors, however, don’t have those options. That can lead to a tricky conversation. Participants in the University of Toronto study told the authors they disliked the gym, finding it “boring, intimidating, or discouraging.” 

And yet, “a common suggestion ... from health care providers was to join a gym.”

Many patients, Spencer Nadolsky, MD, says, associate strength training with “grunting, groaning, or getting ‘bulky’ vs. ‘toned.’ ” Memories of soreness from overzealous workouts are another barrier.

He recommends “starting small and slow,” with one or two full-body workouts a week. Those initial workouts might include just one to two sets of four to five exercises. “Consider if someone is exercising at home or in a gym to build a routine around equipment that’s available to them,” Dr. Nadolsky says.

Once you determine what you have to work with, help the patient choose exercises that fit their needs, goals, preferences, limitations, and prior injuries.

One more consideration: While Dr. Nadolsky tries to “stay away from telling a patient they need to do specific types of exercise to be successful,” he makes an exception for patients who’re taking a GLP-1 agonist. “There is a concern for muscle mass loss along with fat loss.”
 

Practicing, preaching, and checking privilege

When Dr. Thornton, Dr. Freedhoff, and Dr. Nadolsky discuss exercise, their patients know they practice what they preach. 

Dr. Nadolsky, who was a nationally ranked wrestler at the University of North Carolina, hosts the Docs Who Lift podcast with his brother, Karl Nadolsky, MD. 

Dr. Freedhoff is also a lifter and fitness enthusiast, and Dr. Thornton was a world-class rower whose team came within 0.8 seconds of a silver medal at the Beijing Olympics. (They finished fourth.)

But not all physicians follow their own lifestyle advice, Dr. Freedhoff says. That doesn’t make them bad doctors – it makes them human.

“I’ve done 300 minutes a week of exercise” – the recommended amount for weight maintenance – “to see what’s involved,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “That’s far, far, far from a trivial amount.”

That leads to this advice for his fellow physicians:

“The most important thing to know about exercise is that finding the time and having the health to do so is a privilege,” he says. 

Understanding that is crucial for assessing your patient’s needs and providing the right help.

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

Clinicians are well aware of the benefits of physical activity and the consequences of inactivity. 

Managing the diseases associated with inactivity – heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension – falls to physicians. So one might assume they routinely prescribe exercise to their patients, just as they would statins, insulin, or beta-blockers. 

But evidence indicates that doctors don’t routinely have those conversations. They may lack confidence in their ability to give effective advice, fear offending patients, or simply not know what to say.

That’s understandable. Many doctors receive little training on how to counsel patients to exercise, according to research over the past decade. Despite efforts to improve this, many medical students still feel unprepared to prescribe physical activity to patients.

But here’s the thing: Doctors are in a unique position to change things.

Only 28% of Americans meet physical activity guidelines, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the same time, other research suggests that patients want to be more active and would like help from their doctor.

“Patients are motivated to hear about physical activity from physicians and try to make a change,” says Jane Thornton, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in family medicine at Western University, Ont. “Just saying something, even if you don’t have specialized knowledge, makes a difference because of the credibility we have as physicians.”

Conveniently, just like exercise, the best way to get started is to ... get started.

Here’s how to break down the process into steps.
 

1. Ask patients about their physical activity

Think of this as taking any kind of patient history, only for physical activity.

Do they have a regular exercise routine? For how many minutes a day are they active? How many days a week?

“It takes less than a minute to ask and record,” Dr. Thornton says. Once you put it into the patient’s electronic record, you have something you can track.
 

2. Write an actual prescription

By giving the patient a written, printed prescription when they leave your office, “you’re showing it’s an important part of treatment or prevention,” Dr. Thornton explains. It puts physical activity on the level of a vital sign.

Include frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise. The American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise is Medicine initiative provides a prescription template you can use.
 

3. Measure what they do

Measurement helps the patient adopt the new behavior, and it helps the physician provide tailored advice going forward, Dr. Thornton says.

With the rise of health-monitoring wearables, tracking activity has never been easier. Of course, not everyone wants to (or can afford to) use a smartwatch or fitness tracker.

For tech-averse patients, ask if they’re willing to write something down, like how many minutes they spent walking, or how many yoga classes they attended. You may never get this from some patients, but it never hurts to ask.
 

4. Refer out when necessary

This brings us to a sticky issue for many physicians: lack of confidence in their ability to speak authoritatively about physical activity. “In most cases, you can absolutely say, ‘Start slow, go gradually,’ that kind of thing,” Dr. Thornton says. “As with anything, confidence will come with practice.”

For specific prescriptive advice, check out the Exercise is Medicine website, which also has handouts you can share with patients and information for specific conditions. If your patient has prediabetes, you can also point them toward the CDC’s diabetes prevention program, which is available in-person or online and may be free or covered by insurance.

If a patient has contraindications, refer out. If you don’t have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, Dr. Thornton recommends reaching out to your regional or national association of sports-medicine professionals. You should be able to find it with a quick Google search.
 

5. Follow up

Ask about physical activity during every contact, either in person or online. 

Dr. Thornton says the second and fifth steps matter most to patients, especially when the prescription and follow-up come from their primary care physician, rather than a nurse or physician assistant to whom you’ve delegated the task.

“The value comes in having a physician emphasize the importance,” Dr. Thornton says. The more time you spend on it, the more that value comes through.
 

What NOT to say to patients about exercise

This might surprise you: 

“I definitely don’t think telling people the official recommendations for physical activity is useful,” says Yoni Freedhoff, MD, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. “If anything, I’d venture it’s counterproductive.”

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the recommended minimum – 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity per week. The problem is what it says to a patient who doesn’t come close to those standards. 

“Few real-world people have the interest, time, energy, or privilege to achieve them,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “Many will recognize that instantly and consequently feel [that] less than that is pointless.”

And that, Dr. Thornton says, is categorically not true. “Even minimal physical activity, in some cases, is beneficial.”

You also want to avoid any explicit connection between exercise and weight loss, Dr. Thornton says.

Though many people do connect the two, the link is often negative, notes a 2019 study from the University of Toronto., triggering painful memories that might go all the way back to gym class. 

Try this pivot from Dr. Freedhoff: “Focus on the role of exercise in mitigating the risks of weight,” he says – like decreasing pain, increasing energy, and improving sleep.
 

How to motivate patients to move

New research backs up this more positive approach. In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, doctors in the United Kingdom who emphasized benefits and minimized health harms convinced more patients to join a weight management program than negative or neutral docs did. These doctors conveyed optimism and excitement, smiling and avoiding any mention of obesity or body mass index.

Exactly what benefits inspire change will be different for each patient. But in general, the more immediate the benefit, the more motivating it will be. 

As the University of Toronto study noted, patients weren’t motivated by vague, distant goals like “increasing life expectancy or avoiding health problems many years in the future.”

They’re much more likely to take action to avoid surgery, reduce medications, or minimize the risk of falling. 

For an older patient, Dr. Freedhoff says, “focusing on the preservation of functional independence can be extremely motivating.” That’s especially true if the patient has vivid memories of seeing a sedentary loved one decline late in life. 

For patients who may be more focused on appearance, they could respond to the idea of improving their body composition. For that, “we talk about the quality of weight loss,” says Spencer Nadolsky, DO, an obesity and lipid specialist and medical director of WeightWatchers. “Ultimately, exercise helps shape the body instead of just changing the number on the scale.”
 

Reducing resistance to resistance training

A conversation about reshaping the body or avoiding age-related disabilities leads naturally to resistance training.  

“I always frame resistance training as the single most valuable thing a person might do to try to preserve their functional independence,” Dr. Freedhoff says. If the patient is over 65, he won’t wait for them to show an interest. “I’ll absolutely bring it up with them directly.”

Dr. Freedhoff has an on-site training facility where trainers show patients how to work out at home with minimal equipment, like dumbbells and resistance bands. 

Most doctors, however, don’t have those options. That can lead to a tricky conversation. Participants in the University of Toronto study told the authors they disliked the gym, finding it “boring, intimidating, or discouraging.” 

And yet, “a common suggestion ... from health care providers was to join a gym.”

Many patients, Spencer Nadolsky, MD, says, associate strength training with “grunting, groaning, or getting ‘bulky’ vs. ‘toned.’ ” Memories of soreness from overzealous workouts are another barrier.

He recommends “starting small and slow,” with one or two full-body workouts a week. Those initial workouts might include just one to two sets of four to five exercises. “Consider if someone is exercising at home or in a gym to build a routine around equipment that’s available to them,” Dr. Nadolsky says.

Once you determine what you have to work with, help the patient choose exercises that fit their needs, goals, preferences, limitations, and prior injuries.

One more consideration: While Dr. Nadolsky tries to “stay away from telling a patient they need to do specific types of exercise to be successful,” he makes an exception for patients who’re taking a GLP-1 agonist. “There is a concern for muscle mass loss along with fat loss.”
 

Practicing, preaching, and checking privilege

When Dr. Thornton, Dr. Freedhoff, and Dr. Nadolsky discuss exercise, their patients know they practice what they preach. 

Dr. Nadolsky, who was a nationally ranked wrestler at the University of North Carolina, hosts the Docs Who Lift podcast with his brother, Karl Nadolsky, MD. 

Dr. Freedhoff is also a lifter and fitness enthusiast, and Dr. Thornton was a world-class rower whose team came within 0.8 seconds of a silver medal at the Beijing Olympics. (They finished fourth.)

But not all physicians follow their own lifestyle advice, Dr. Freedhoff says. That doesn’t make them bad doctors – it makes them human.

“I’ve done 300 minutes a week of exercise” – the recommended amount for weight maintenance – “to see what’s involved,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “That’s far, far, far from a trivial amount.”

That leads to this advice for his fellow physicians:

“The most important thing to know about exercise is that finding the time and having the health to do so is a privilege,” he says. 

Understanding that is crucial for assessing your patient’s needs and providing the right help.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) has declined over the past 2 decades, but 1 in 17 Americans still have a level of 160-189 mg/dL, and 1 in 48 have a level of at least 190 mg/dL, new research shows. Among people with the higher LDL-C level, one in four are both unaware and untreated, the authors report.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using data on 23,667 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted from 1999 to 2020, researchers identified 1,851 (7.8%) with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL and 669 (2.8%) with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL.
• Individuals were classified as “unaware” if they had never had their LDL-C measured or had never been informed of having elevated LDL-C and as “untreated” if their medications didn’t include a statin, ezetimibe, a bile acid sequestrant, or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.
• The authors compared the prevalence of “unaware” and “untreated” by age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, poverty index, and insurance status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, the age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL declined from 12.4% (95% confidence interval, 10.0%-15.3%), representing 21.5 million U.S. adults, to 6.1% (95% CI, 4.8%-7.6%), representing 14.0 million adults (P < .001).
• The age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL declined from 3.8% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%), representing 6.6 million adults, to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.0%), representing 4.8 million adults (P = .001).
• Among those with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL, the proportion of who were unaware and untreated declined from 52.1% to 42.7%, and among those with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL, it declined from 40.8% to 26.8%.
• Being unaware and untreated was more common in younger adults, men, racial and ethnic minority groups, those with lower educational attainment, those with lower income, and those without health insurance.

IN PRACTICE:

The lack of awareness and treatment of high LDL-C uncovered by the study “may be due to difficulties accessing primary care, low rates of screening in primary care, lack of consensus on screening recommendations, insufficient emphasis on LDL-C as a quality measure, and hesitance to treat asymptomatic individuals,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Ahmed Sayed, MBBS, faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by a small number of participants with LDL-C levels of at least 190 mg/dL, possible nonresponse bias, and dependency on participant recall of whether LDL-C was previously measured. The inclusion of pregnant women may have influenced LDL-C levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Sayed has no relevant conflict of interest. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the original publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) has declined over the past 2 decades, but 1 in 17 Americans still have a level of 160-189 mg/dL, and 1 in 48 have a level of at least 190 mg/dL, new research shows. Among people with the higher LDL-C level, one in four are both unaware and untreated, the authors report.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using data on 23,667 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted from 1999 to 2020, researchers identified 1,851 (7.8%) with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL and 669 (2.8%) with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL.
• Individuals were classified as “unaware” if they had never had their LDL-C measured or had never been informed of having elevated LDL-C and as “untreated” if their medications didn’t include a statin, ezetimibe, a bile acid sequestrant, or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.
• The authors compared the prevalence of “unaware” and “untreated” by age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, poverty index, and insurance status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, the age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL declined from 12.4% (95% confidence interval, 10.0%-15.3%), representing 21.5 million U.S. adults, to 6.1% (95% CI, 4.8%-7.6%), representing 14.0 million adults (P < .001).
• The age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL declined from 3.8% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%), representing 6.6 million adults, to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.0%), representing 4.8 million adults (P = .001).
• Among those with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL, the proportion of who were unaware and untreated declined from 52.1% to 42.7%, and among those with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL, it declined from 40.8% to 26.8%.
• Being unaware and untreated was more common in younger adults, men, racial and ethnic minority groups, those with lower educational attainment, those with lower income, and those without health insurance.

IN PRACTICE:

The lack of awareness and treatment of high LDL-C uncovered by the study “may be due to difficulties accessing primary care, low rates of screening in primary care, lack of consensus on screening recommendations, insufficient emphasis on LDL-C as a quality measure, and hesitance to treat asymptomatic individuals,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Ahmed Sayed, MBBS, faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by a small number of participants with LDL-C levels of at least 190 mg/dL, possible nonresponse bias, and dependency on participant recall of whether LDL-C was previously measured. The inclusion of pregnant women may have influenced LDL-C levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Sayed has no relevant conflict of interest. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the original publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) has declined over the past 2 decades, but 1 in 17 Americans still have a level of 160-189 mg/dL, and 1 in 48 have a level of at least 190 mg/dL, new research shows. Among people with the higher LDL-C level, one in four are both unaware and untreated, the authors report.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using data on 23,667 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted from 1999 to 2020, researchers identified 1,851 (7.8%) with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL and 669 (2.8%) with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL.
• Individuals were classified as “unaware” if they had never had their LDL-C measured or had never been informed of having elevated LDL-C and as “untreated” if their medications didn’t include a statin, ezetimibe, a bile acid sequestrant, or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.
• The authors compared the prevalence of “unaware” and “untreated” by age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, poverty index, and insurance status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, the age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL declined from 12.4% (95% confidence interval, 10.0%-15.3%), representing 21.5 million U.S. adults, to 6.1% (95% CI, 4.8%-7.6%), representing 14.0 million adults (P < .001).
• The age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL declined from 3.8% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%), representing 6.6 million adults, to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.0%), representing 4.8 million adults (P = .001).
• Among those with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL, the proportion of who were unaware and untreated declined from 52.1% to 42.7%, and among those with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL, it declined from 40.8% to 26.8%.
• Being unaware and untreated was more common in younger adults, men, racial and ethnic minority groups, those with lower educational attainment, those with lower income, and those without health insurance.

IN PRACTICE:

The lack of awareness and treatment of high LDL-C uncovered by the study “may be due to difficulties accessing primary care, low rates of screening in primary care, lack of consensus on screening recommendations, insufficient emphasis on LDL-C as a quality measure, and hesitance to treat asymptomatic individuals,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Ahmed Sayed, MBBS, faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by a small number of participants with LDL-C levels of at least 190 mg/dL, possible nonresponse bias, and dependency on participant recall of whether LDL-C was previously measured. The inclusion of pregnant women may have influenced LDL-C levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Sayed has no relevant conflict of interest. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the original publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher triglyceride levels – a main energy source for the brain – are associated with lower risk for dementia that is not mediated by age, sex, or APOE epsilon-4 allele status, a large study of community-dwelling older adults suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 18,294 participants, median age 75 years and median triglyceride level 106 mg/dL, from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study, a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of daily low-dose aspirin in older people without dementia or history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at recruitment.
• Researchers repeated their main analyses in a sub-cohort of 13,976 subjects with APOE epsilon-4 genetic data, and an external cohort of 68,200 participants, mean age 66.9 years and a median nonfasting triglyceride of 139 mg/dL, from the UK biobank, followed for a median of 12.5 years.
• The main outcome was incident dementia over 6.4 years and secondary outcomes included changes in composite cognitive function and domain-specific cognition.
• Researchers controlled for a number of potential confounders, including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol consumption, education, family history of dementia, diabetes, hypertension, and statin use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every doubling of baseline triglycerides was associated with an 18% lower risk of incident dementia across the entire study cohort (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82) and in participants with genotypic data (aHR, 0.82) and a 17% lower risk in the external UK Biobank cohort (aHR, 0.83) (P ≤ .01 for all).
• In the entire cohort, the risk for dementia was 15% lower in those with triglyceride levels at 63-106 mg/dL (aHR, 0.85); 24% lower in those at 107-186 mg/dL (aHR, 0.76); and 36% lower for those with levels higher than 187 mg/dL (aHR, 0.64), compared with individuals with levels below 62 mg/dL (P for trend <.001).
• The direction and magnitude of the inverse association between triglycerides and dementia risk were not modified by age, sex, or risk factors related to triglycerides or dementia.
• In the entire study cohort, higher triglyceride levels were significantly associated with slower decline in global cognition (P = .02), composite cognition (P = .03), and a borderline significantly slower decline in episodic memory (P = .05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Triglyceride levels may serve as a useful predictor for dementia risk and cognitive decline in older populations,” the investigators write. Higher triglyceride levels may reflect better overall health and/or lifestyle behaviors that protect against dementia.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zhen Zhou, of Monash University, Melbourne. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study can’t establish a causal relationship between triglyceride levels and dementia or fully exclude reverse causality. As most ASPREE participants had normal to high-normal triglyceride levels, the results can’t be generalized to those with severe hypertriglyceridemia. The findings are unique to older people without CVD and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)/HCF Research Foundation. Dr. Zhou reported receiving salary from the RACGP/HCF Research Foundation.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher triglyceride levels – a main energy source for the brain – are associated with lower risk for dementia that is not mediated by age, sex, or APOE epsilon-4 allele status, a large study of community-dwelling older adults suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 18,294 participants, median age 75 years and median triglyceride level 106 mg/dL, from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study, a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of daily low-dose aspirin in older people without dementia or history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at recruitment.
• Researchers repeated their main analyses in a sub-cohort of 13,976 subjects with APOE epsilon-4 genetic data, and an external cohort of 68,200 participants, mean age 66.9 years and a median nonfasting triglyceride of 139 mg/dL, from the UK biobank, followed for a median of 12.5 years.
• The main outcome was incident dementia over 6.4 years and secondary outcomes included changes in composite cognitive function and domain-specific cognition.
• Researchers controlled for a number of potential confounders, including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol consumption, education, family history of dementia, diabetes, hypertension, and statin use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every doubling of baseline triglycerides was associated with an 18% lower risk of incident dementia across the entire study cohort (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82) and in participants with genotypic data (aHR, 0.82) and a 17% lower risk in the external UK Biobank cohort (aHR, 0.83) (P ≤ .01 for all).
• In the entire cohort, the risk for dementia was 15% lower in those with triglyceride levels at 63-106 mg/dL (aHR, 0.85); 24% lower in those at 107-186 mg/dL (aHR, 0.76); and 36% lower for those with levels higher than 187 mg/dL (aHR, 0.64), compared with individuals with levels below 62 mg/dL (P for trend <.001).
• The direction and magnitude of the inverse association between triglycerides and dementia risk were not modified by age, sex, or risk factors related to triglycerides or dementia.
• In the entire study cohort, higher triglyceride levels were significantly associated with slower decline in global cognition (P = .02), composite cognition (P = .03), and a borderline significantly slower decline in episodic memory (P = .05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Triglyceride levels may serve as a useful predictor for dementia risk and cognitive decline in older populations,” the investigators write. Higher triglyceride levels may reflect better overall health and/or lifestyle behaviors that protect against dementia.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zhen Zhou, of Monash University, Melbourne. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study can’t establish a causal relationship between triglyceride levels and dementia or fully exclude reverse causality. As most ASPREE participants had normal to high-normal triglyceride levels, the results can’t be generalized to those with severe hypertriglyceridemia. The findings are unique to older people without CVD and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)/HCF Research Foundation. Dr. Zhou reported receiving salary from the RACGP/HCF Research Foundation.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher triglyceride levels – a main energy source for the brain – are associated with lower risk for dementia that is not mediated by age, sex, or APOE epsilon-4 allele status, a large study of community-dwelling older adults suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 18,294 participants, median age 75 years and median triglyceride level 106 mg/dL, from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study, a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of daily low-dose aspirin in older people without dementia or history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at recruitment.
• Researchers repeated their main analyses in a sub-cohort of 13,976 subjects with APOE epsilon-4 genetic data, and an external cohort of 68,200 participants, mean age 66.9 years and a median nonfasting triglyceride of 139 mg/dL, from the UK biobank, followed for a median of 12.5 years.
• The main outcome was incident dementia over 6.4 years and secondary outcomes included changes in composite cognitive function and domain-specific cognition.
• Researchers controlled for a number of potential confounders, including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol consumption, education, family history of dementia, diabetes, hypertension, and statin use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every doubling of baseline triglycerides was associated with an 18% lower risk of incident dementia across the entire study cohort (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82) and in participants with genotypic data (aHR, 0.82) and a 17% lower risk in the external UK Biobank cohort (aHR, 0.83) (P ≤ .01 for all).
• In the entire cohort, the risk for dementia was 15% lower in those with triglyceride levels at 63-106 mg/dL (aHR, 0.85); 24% lower in those at 107-186 mg/dL (aHR, 0.76); and 36% lower for those with levels higher than 187 mg/dL (aHR, 0.64), compared with individuals with levels below 62 mg/dL (P for trend <.001).
• The direction and magnitude of the inverse association between triglycerides and dementia risk were not modified by age, sex, or risk factors related to triglycerides or dementia.
• In the entire study cohort, higher triglyceride levels were significantly associated with slower decline in global cognition (P = .02), composite cognition (P = .03), and a borderline significantly slower decline in episodic memory (P = .05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Triglyceride levels may serve as a useful predictor for dementia risk and cognitive decline in older populations,” the investigators write. Higher triglyceride levels may reflect better overall health and/or lifestyle behaviors that protect against dementia.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zhen Zhou, of Monash University, Melbourne. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study can’t establish a causal relationship between triglyceride levels and dementia or fully exclude reverse causality. As most ASPREE participants had normal to high-normal triglyceride levels, the results can’t be generalized to those with severe hypertriglyceridemia. The findings are unique to older people without CVD and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)/HCF Research Foundation. Dr. Zhou reported receiving salary from the RACGP/HCF Research Foundation.

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

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.