User login
Coronary artery calcium score bests polygenic risk score in CHD prediction
As a predictor of coronary heart disease (CHD) events, the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score on computed tomography had better risk discrimination than the polygenic risk score, a binational study found. And when added to classic cardiovascular risk factors, the CAC score significantly improved risk classification while the polygenic risk factor score did not.
These findings emerged from two large cohorts of middle-aged and older White adults from the United States and the Netherlands in the first head-to-head comparison of these two approaches. Led by Sadiya S. Kahn, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology) at Northwestern University, Chicago, the study was published online in JAMA.
There has been much interest in using both genetic factors and CT imaging to better identify individuals at risk for heart disease. “Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and we wanted to better understand the comparative predictive utility to provide support for what the preferred approach should be,” Dr. Kahn said in an interview. “We focused on middle-aged to older adults for whom current risk prediction equations are relevant in estimating risk with the Pooled Cohort Equation, or PCE.”
The superiority of the CT-imaged coronary artery risk score may be because of its direct visualization of calcification in the arteries and the subclinical disease burden rather than a focus on common genetic variants, Dr. Kahn explained. “In addition, prior studies have demonstrated that genetics, or inherited risk, is not destiny, so this score may not perform as well for risk discrimination as the traditional risk factors themselves along with CT.”
The study
Study participants came from the U.S. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA, n = 1,991) and the Dutch Rotterdam Study (RS, n = 1,217). Ages ranged from 45 to 79, with the medians in the two cohorts 61 and 68 years, respectively. Slightly more than half of participants in both groups were female.
Traditional risk factors were used to calculate CHD risk with pooled cohort equations, while computed tomography was used to determine the CAC score and genotyped samples for a validated polygenic risk score.
Both scores were significantly associated with 10-year risk of incident CHD.
The median predicted atherosclerotic disease risk based on traditional risk factors was 6.99% in MESA and 5.93% in RS. During the total available follow-up in MESA (median, 16.0 years) and RS (median, 14.2 years), incident CHD occurred in 187 participants (9.4%) and 98 participants (8.1%), respectively.
C (concordance) statistics for the two scores showed the superiority of the CAC. This statistic measures a model’s ability to rank patients from high to low risk, with a value of 1 being perfect risk fit or concordance and 0.70 or more indicating good concordance and risk discrimination. The CAC score had a C statistic of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.79) vs. 0.69 for the polygenic risk score (95% CI, 0.63-0.71).
When each score was added to PCEs, the C statistics changed as follows: CAC score, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06-0.13); polygenic risk score, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.00-0.04); and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.07-0.14) for both.
Net reclassification significantly improved with the CAC plus PCEs by the following values: 0.19 (95% CI, 0.06-0.28). The change was not significant, however, with the polygenic risk score plus PCEs: 0.04 (95% CI, –0.05-0.10).
In the clinical setting, Dr. Kahn said, “The use of CT in patients who are at intermediate risk for heart disease can be helpful in refining risk estimation and guiding recommendations for lipid-lowering therapy. Polygenic risk scores are not helpful in middle-aged to older adults above and beyond traditional risk factors for predicting risk of heart disease.”
This study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. MESA is supported by the NHLBI. The Rotterdam Study is funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Netherlands Genomics Initiative; the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports; the European Commission (DG XII); and the Municipality of Rotterdam. Dr. Khan reported grants from the NHLBI and the NIH during the study and outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grant support from, variously, the NIH, the NHLBI, and the American Heart Association.
As a predictor of coronary heart disease (CHD) events, the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score on computed tomography had better risk discrimination than the polygenic risk score, a binational study found. And when added to classic cardiovascular risk factors, the CAC score significantly improved risk classification while the polygenic risk factor score did not.
These findings emerged from two large cohorts of middle-aged and older White adults from the United States and the Netherlands in the first head-to-head comparison of these two approaches. Led by Sadiya S. Kahn, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology) at Northwestern University, Chicago, the study was published online in JAMA.
There has been much interest in using both genetic factors and CT imaging to better identify individuals at risk for heart disease. “Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and we wanted to better understand the comparative predictive utility to provide support for what the preferred approach should be,” Dr. Kahn said in an interview. “We focused on middle-aged to older adults for whom current risk prediction equations are relevant in estimating risk with the Pooled Cohort Equation, or PCE.”
The superiority of the CT-imaged coronary artery risk score may be because of its direct visualization of calcification in the arteries and the subclinical disease burden rather than a focus on common genetic variants, Dr. Kahn explained. “In addition, prior studies have demonstrated that genetics, or inherited risk, is not destiny, so this score may not perform as well for risk discrimination as the traditional risk factors themselves along with CT.”
The study
Study participants came from the U.S. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA, n = 1,991) and the Dutch Rotterdam Study (RS, n = 1,217). Ages ranged from 45 to 79, with the medians in the two cohorts 61 and 68 years, respectively. Slightly more than half of participants in both groups were female.
Traditional risk factors were used to calculate CHD risk with pooled cohort equations, while computed tomography was used to determine the CAC score and genotyped samples for a validated polygenic risk score.
Both scores were significantly associated with 10-year risk of incident CHD.
The median predicted atherosclerotic disease risk based on traditional risk factors was 6.99% in MESA and 5.93% in RS. During the total available follow-up in MESA (median, 16.0 years) and RS (median, 14.2 years), incident CHD occurred in 187 participants (9.4%) and 98 participants (8.1%), respectively.
C (concordance) statistics for the two scores showed the superiority of the CAC. This statistic measures a model’s ability to rank patients from high to low risk, with a value of 1 being perfect risk fit or concordance and 0.70 or more indicating good concordance and risk discrimination. The CAC score had a C statistic of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.79) vs. 0.69 for the polygenic risk score (95% CI, 0.63-0.71).
When each score was added to PCEs, the C statistics changed as follows: CAC score, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06-0.13); polygenic risk score, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.00-0.04); and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.07-0.14) for both.
Net reclassification significantly improved with the CAC plus PCEs by the following values: 0.19 (95% CI, 0.06-0.28). The change was not significant, however, with the polygenic risk score plus PCEs: 0.04 (95% CI, –0.05-0.10).
In the clinical setting, Dr. Kahn said, “The use of CT in patients who are at intermediate risk for heart disease can be helpful in refining risk estimation and guiding recommendations for lipid-lowering therapy. Polygenic risk scores are not helpful in middle-aged to older adults above and beyond traditional risk factors for predicting risk of heart disease.”
This study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. MESA is supported by the NHLBI. The Rotterdam Study is funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Netherlands Genomics Initiative; the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports; the European Commission (DG XII); and the Municipality of Rotterdam. Dr. Khan reported grants from the NHLBI and the NIH during the study and outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grant support from, variously, the NIH, the NHLBI, and the American Heart Association.
As a predictor of coronary heart disease (CHD) events, the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score on computed tomography had better risk discrimination than the polygenic risk score, a binational study found. And when added to classic cardiovascular risk factors, the CAC score significantly improved risk classification while the polygenic risk factor score did not.
These findings emerged from two large cohorts of middle-aged and older White adults from the United States and the Netherlands in the first head-to-head comparison of these two approaches. Led by Sadiya S. Kahn, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology) at Northwestern University, Chicago, the study was published online in JAMA.
There has been much interest in using both genetic factors and CT imaging to better identify individuals at risk for heart disease. “Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and we wanted to better understand the comparative predictive utility to provide support for what the preferred approach should be,” Dr. Kahn said in an interview. “We focused on middle-aged to older adults for whom current risk prediction equations are relevant in estimating risk with the Pooled Cohort Equation, or PCE.”
The superiority of the CT-imaged coronary artery risk score may be because of its direct visualization of calcification in the arteries and the subclinical disease burden rather than a focus on common genetic variants, Dr. Kahn explained. “In addition, prior studies have demonstrated that genetics, or inherited risk, is not destiny, so this score may not perform as well for risk discrimination as the traditional risk factors themselves along with CT.”
The study
Study participants came from the U.S. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA, n = 1,991) and the Dutch Rotterdam Study (RS, n = 1,217). Ages ranged from 45 to 79, with the medians in the two cohorts 61 and 68 years, respectively. Slightly more than half of participants in both groups were female.
Traditional risk factors were used to calculate CHD risk with pooled cohort equations, while computed tomography was used to determine the CAC score and genotyped samples for a validated polygenic risk score.
Both scores were significantly associated with 10-year risk of incident CHD.
The median predicted atherosclerotic disease risk based on traditional risk factors was 6.99% in MESA and 5.93% in RS. During the total available follow-up in MESA (median, 16.0 years) and RS (median, 14.2 years), incident CHD occurred in 187 participants (9.4%) and 98 participants (8.1%), respectively.
C (concordance) statistics for the two scores showed the superiority of the CAC. This statistic measures a model’s ability to rank patients from high to low risk, with a value of 1 being perfect risk fit or concordance and 0.70 or more indicating good concordance and risk discrimination. The CAC score had a C statistic of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.79) vs. 0.69 for the polygenic risk score (95% CI, 0.63-0.71).
When each score was added to PCEs, the C statistics changed as follows: CAC score, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06-0.13); polygenic risk score, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.00-0.04); and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.07-0.14) for both.
Net reclassification significantly improved with the CAC plus PCEs by the following values: 0.19 (95% CI, 0.06-0.28). The change was not significant, however, with the polygenic risk score plus PCEs: 0.04 (95% CI, –0.05-0.10).
In the clinical setting, Dr. Kahn said, “The use of CT in patients who are at intermediate risk for heart disease can be helpful in refining risk estimation and guiding recommendations for lipid-lowering therapy. Polygenic risk scores are not helpful in middle-aged to older adults above and beyond traditional risk factors for predicting risk of heart disease.”
This study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. MESA is supported by the NHLBI. The Rotterdam Study is funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Netherlands Genomics Initiative; the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports; the European Commission (DG XII); and the Municipality of Rotterdam. Dr. Khan reported grants from the NHLBI and the NIH during the study and outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grant support from, variously, the NIH, the NHLBI, and the American Heart Association.
FROM JAMA
Statins appear to guard against liver disease progression
The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.
The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.
Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
More than just cholesterol lowering
The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.
The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.
“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”
Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.
A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.
Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.
In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).
The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.
Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).
This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).
Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.
Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).
The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’
The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.
“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.
“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.
“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.
The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.
The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.
Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
More than just cholesterol lowering
The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.
The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.
“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”
Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.
A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.
Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.
In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).
The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.
Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).
This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).
Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.
Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).
The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’
The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.
“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.
“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.
“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.
The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.
The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.
Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
More than just cholesterol lowering
The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.
The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.
“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”
Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.
A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.
Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.
In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).
The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.
Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).
This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).
Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.
Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).
The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’
The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.
“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.
“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.
“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.
The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Bundled strategy increased preteen lipid screening
WASHINGTON – A bundled intervention combining point-of-care testing, electronic medical record support, and provider education significantly improved lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, according to data from approximately 100 monthly visits over a 3-year period.
Guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute currently recommend universal lipid screening for children aged 9-11 years, but screening rates in clinical practice remain low, according to Ruth E. Gardner, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.
In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Gardner and colleagues shared results of the implementation of a bundled testing protocol designed to improve screening.
The researchers reviewed data on lipid testing within 30 days for all 9- to 11-year-old well child visits at a single center between May 2019 and February 2022. The bundled intervention was introduced in May 2021.
The bundled protocol included in-office capillary testing and provider education. In addition, electronic medical record templates were modified to include prompts for lipid screening at relevant ages, and EMR orders were adjusted to include lipid testing. The researchers also collected targeted provider feedback on individualized screening rates in February 2022.
Screening rates were plotted monthly. For the period from May 2019 through May 2021, the rates averaged 6.5%. However, after the introduction of the bundled intervention, the rate increased to 29.9%. Following targeted provider feedback in February 2022, the researchers found an additional shift to 52.1% through March and April 2022.
The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center, and the researchers used an extended study period to account for disruptions to well-child care in the spring of 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the results support the effectiveness of a bundled intervention for improving lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, the researchers said, and targeted provider feedback and education could yield additional improvements, they concluded.
Preteen years are an optimal time for screening
“The current study is important because atherosclerosis begins in childhood, and screening at ages 9-11 is an optimal time to begin lifestyle changes to improve overall health and reduce risks of heart disease,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview.
Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study, said, “The number of recommended and required screening items needed in pediatrics is vast, so many providers have to select which items to focus on for their health screenings with these ages.”
Overall, “I was impressed with the improvements that were made in this quality improvement study,” said Ms. Thew.
Barriers to lipid screening in this population include the reduced number of health screenings and immunizations recommended for this age group; the consequence is that access is limited to discuss preventive care opportunities, said Ms. Thew in an interview. Steps to overcome these barriers could include the use of many of the screening tools introduced in the current study, such as point-of-care testing in the office, use of the EMR to remind providers of testing, which can be done during well visits or school physicals, and educating providers about the current guidelines, she noted.
Other strategies to increase screening include moving the immunization series to provide more frequent appointments to children aged 9-11 years to offer education and preventive care, Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
WASHINGTON – A bundled intervention combining point-of-care testing, electronic medical record support, and provider education significantly improved lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, according to data from approximately 100 monthly visits over a 3-year period.
Guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute currently recommend universal lipid screening for children aged 9-11 years, but screening rates in clinical practice remain low, according to Ruth E. Gardner, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.
In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Gardner and colleagues shared results of the implementation of a bundled testing protocol designed to improve screening.
The researchers reviewed data on lipid testing within 30 days for all 9- to 11-year-old well child visits at a single center between May 2019 and February 2022. The bundled intervention was introduced in May 2021.
The bundled protocol included in-office capillary testing and provider education. In addition, electronic medical record templates were modified to include prompts for lipid screening at relevant ages, and EMR orders were adjusted to include lipid testing. The researchers also collected targeted provider feedback on individualized screening rates in February 2022.
Screening rates were plotted monthly. For the period from May 2019 through May 2021, the rates averaged 6.5%. However, after the introduction of the bundled intervention, the rate increased to 29.9%. Following targeted provider feedback in February 2022, the researchers found an additional shift to 52.1% through March and April 2022.
The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center, and the researchers used an extended study period to account for disruptions to well-child care in the spring of 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the results support the effectiveness of a bundled intervention for improving lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, the researchers said, and targeted provider feedback and education could yield additional improvements, they concluded.
Preteen years are an optimal time for screening
“The current study is important because atherosclerosis begins in childhood, and screening at ages 9-11 is an optimal time to begin lifestyle changes to improve overall health and reduce risks of heart disease,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview.
Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study, said, “The number of recommended and required screening items needed in pediatrics is vast, so many providers have to select which items to focus on for their health screenings with these ages.”
Overall, “I was impressed with the improvements that were made in this quality improvement study,” said Ms. Thew.
Barriers to lipid screening in this population include the reduced number of health screenings and immunizations recommended for this age group; the consequence is that access is limited to discuss preventive care opportunities, said Ms. Thew in an interview. Steps to overcome these barriers could include the use of many of the screening tools introduced in the current study, such as point-of-care testing in the office, use of the EMR to remind providers of testing, which can be done during well visits or school physicals, and educating providers about the current guidelines, she noted.
Other strategies to increase screening include moving the immunization series to provide more frequent appointments to children aged 9-11 years to offer education and preventive care, Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
WASHINGTON – A bundled intervention combining point-of-care testing, electronic medical record support, and provider education significantly improved lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, according to data from approximately 100 monthly visits over a 3-year period.
Guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute currently recommend universal lipid screening for children aged 9-11 years, but screening rates in clinical practice remain low, according to Ruth E. Gardner, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.
In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Gardner and colleagues shared results of the implementation of a bundled testing protocol designed to improve screening.
The researchers reviewed data on lipid testing within 30 days for all 9- to 11-year-old well child visits at a single center between May 2019 and February 2022. The bundled intervention was introduced in May 2021.
The bundled protocol included in-office capillary testing and provider education. In addition, electronic medical record templates were modified to include prompts for lipid screening at relevant ages, and EMR orders were adjusted to include lipid testing. The researchers also collected targeted provider feedback on individualized screening rates in February 2022.
Screening rates were plotted monthly. For the period from May 2019 through May 2021, the rates averaged 6.5%. However, after the introduction of the bundled intervention, the rate increased to 29.9%. Following targeted provider feedback in February 2022, the researchers found an additional shift to 52.1% through March and April 2022.
The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center, and the researchers used an extended study period to account for disruptions to well-child care in the spring of 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the results support the effectiveness of a bundled intervention for improving lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, the researchers said, and targeted provider feedback and education could yield additional improvements, they concluded.
Preteen years are an optimal time for screening
“The current study is important because atherosclerosis begins in childhood, and screening at ages 9-11 is an optimal time to begin lifestyle changes to improve overall health and reduce risks of heart disease,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview.
Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study, said, “The number of recommended and required screening items needed in pediatrics is vast, so many providers have to select which items to focus on for their health screenings with these ages.”
Overall, “I was impressed with the improvements that were made in this quality improvement study,” said Ms. Thew.
Barriers to lipid screening in this population include the reduced number of health screenings and immunizations recommended for this age group; the consequence is that access is limited to discuss preventive care opportunities, said Ms. Thew in an interview. Steps to overcome these barriers could include the use of many of the screening tools introduced in the current study, such as point-of-care testing in the office, use of the EMR to remind providers of testing, which can be done during well visits or school physicals, and educating providers about the current guidelines, she noted.
Other strategies to increase screening include moving the immunization series to provide more frequent appointments to children aged 9-11 years to offer education and preventive care, Ms. Thew added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
FROM PAS 2023
Statin misinformation on social media flagged by AI
Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.
The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.
But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.
“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.
“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.
“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.
A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.
Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”
Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”
The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.
One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.
Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”
The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.
“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.
“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.
Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.”
She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information.
“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.
“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.
The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.
But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.
“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.
“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.
“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.
A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.
Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”
Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”
The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.
One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.
Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”
The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.
“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.
“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.
Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.”
She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information.
“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.
“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.
The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.
But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.
“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.
“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.
“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.
A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.
Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”
Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”
The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.
One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.
Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”
The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.
“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.
“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.
Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.”
She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information.
“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.
“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Expert discusses which diets are best, based on the evidence
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2023
Statins tied to lower stroke risk in atrial fibrillation
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.
Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.
Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.
“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.
The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
Widely prescribed
Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”
Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.
The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.
The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.
Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.
“We also found long-term statin use was associated with greater protection than short-term use,” she said. For statin use of 6 years or longer, in comparison with use of 3 months to 2 years, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lowered by 43%; for hemorrhagic stroke, it was lowered by 44%, and for TIA, it was lowered by 42%.
These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients used anticoagulant medications or the type of anticoagulant.
Oussama Wazni, MD, MBA, section head of cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at the Cleveland Clinic, was a moderator of the poster session at which Ms. Huang presented her study. In an interview, he called the study “very important.”
“The message should be that all patients who have atrial fibrillation should be checked for cholesterol levels, and we should consider placing them on statins,” he said. “Is there an opportunity? Probably there is, and that’s why we’re seeing this effect in this group of patients.”
When asked about a possible mechanism by which statins produced the effects seen in the study, he pointed to LDL cholesterol lowering and possibly an effect on inflammation. “If a patient had a carotid atheroma, for example, maybe it helped with that,” he said. Previous work has shown that inflammation is related to or is associated with higher risk of thrombogenic effects, including MI or stroke.
It may be a bit less clear how statins reduced the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes, but Dr. Wazni proposed that some strokes could have started as an ischemic stroke “and then had hemorrhagic conversion, so we don’t have the granularity in here to know whether that was the case or not.”
Given the fact that the effect was stronger the longer a patient had been taking a statin, Dr. Wazni said that if a patient is tolerating the drug well, there should be no reason to discontinue it, regardless of age.
He said the study provides “welcome data and evidence because it’s pointing in the right direction,” but prospective studies would be useful “so that we can see what is driving what. Otherwise, this is just an association.”
The study was supported by Sanming Project Shenzhen. Ms. Huang and Dr. Wazni disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.
Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.
Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.
“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.
The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
Widely prescribed
Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”
Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.
The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.
The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.
Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.
“We also found long-term statin use was associated with greater protection than short-term use,” she said. For statin use of 6 years or longer, in comparison with use of 3 months to 2 years, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lowered by 43%; for hemorrhagic stroke, it was lowered by 44%, and for TIA, it was lowered by 42%.
These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients used anticoagulant medications or the type of anticoagulant.
Oussama Wazni, MD, MBA, section head of cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at the Cleveland Clinic, was a moderator of the poster session at which Ms. Huang presented her study. In an interview, he called the study “very important.”
“The message should be that all patients who have atrial fibrillation should be checked for cholesterol levels, and we should consider placing them on statins,” he said. “Is there an opportunity? Probably there is, and that’s why we’re seeing this effect in this group of patients.”
When asked about a possible mechanism by which statins produced the effects seen in the study, he pointed to LDL cholesterol lowering and possibly an effect on inflammation. “If a patient had a carotid atheroma, for example, maybe it helped with that,” he said. Previous work has shown that inflammation is related to or is associated with higher risk of thrombogenic effects, including MI or stroke.
It may be a bit less clear how statins reduced the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes, but Dr. Wazni proposed that some strokes could have started as an ischemic stroke “and then had hemorrhagic conversion, so we don’t have the granularity in here to know whether that was the case or not.”
Given the fact that the effect was stronger the longer a patient had been taking a statin, Dr. Wazni said that if a patient is tolerating the drug well, there should be no reason to discontinue it, regardless of age.
He said the study provides “welcome data and evidence because it’s pointing in the right direction,” but prospective studies would be useful “so that we can see what is driving what. Otherwise, this is just an association.”
The study was supported by Sanming Project Shenzhen. Ms. Huang and Dr. Wazni disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), initiation of statins soon after diagnosis was protective against stroke and related vascular events, and longer duration of use was associated with greater protection, a new cohort study shows.
Statin use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), regardless of whether patients were also taking anticoagulant medications.
Lead author Jiayi Huang, a PhD student at Hong Kong University at Shenzhen (China) Hospital, concluded that the study’s findings support the use of statins to prevent stroke for patients with new-onset AFib.
“The findings have important clinical implications, particularly given that in atrial fibrillation, patients’ ischemic strokes are often fatal or disabling and have a high risk of recurrence,” she said.
The results were presented in a moderated poster session at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2023 Congress.
Widely prescribed
Anticoagulant drugs are prescribed to lower the fivefold increased risk of stroke among individuals with AFib, compared with those without AFib, but the therapy does not eliminate the higher risk, Ms. Huang explained. And although statins are widely prescribed to reduce the likelihood of myocardial infarction and stroke, “the benefit of statins for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation has been unclear.”
Ms. Huang and colleagues analyzed data from 51,472 patients newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2018. The population was divided into statin users (n = 11,866), defined as patients who had taken statins for at least 19 consecutive days in the first year after AFib diagnosis, and statin nonusers (n = 39,606), based on whether they were prescribed statin therapy after their first diagnosis of AFib.
The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and 47.7% were women. The investigators used statistical methods to balance baseline covariates between the two groups.
The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and TIA. Median follow-up was 5.1 years.
Statin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes, compared with nonuse. Statin users had a 17% reduced risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, a 7% reduced risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a 15% rate of reduced risk of TIA, Ms. Huang reported.
“We also found long-term statin use was associated with greater protection than short-term use,” she said. For statin use of 6 years or longer, in comparison with use of 3 months to 2 years, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lowered by 43%; for hemorrhagic stroke, it was lowered by 44%, and for TIA, it was lowered by 42%.
These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients used anticoagulant medications or the type of anticoagulant.
Oussama Wazni, MD, MBA, section head of cardiac electrophysiology and pacing at the Cleveland Clinic, was a moderator of the poster session at which Ms. Huang presented her study. In an interview, he called the study “very important.”
“The message should be that all patients who have atrial fibrillation should be checked for cholesterol levels, and we should consider placing them on statins,” he said. “Is there an opportunity? Probably there is, and that’s why we’re seeing this effect in this group of patients.”
When asked about a possible mechanism by which statins produced the effects seen in the study, he pointed to LDL cholesterol lowering and possibly an effect on inflammation. “If a patient had a carotid atheroma, for example, maybe it helped with that,” he said. Previous work has shown that inflammation is related to or is associated with higher risk of thrombogenic effects, including MI or stroke.
It may be a bit less clear how statins reduced the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes, but Dr. Wazni proposed that some strokes could have started as an ischemic stroke “and then had hemorrhagic conversion, so we don’t have the granularity in here to know whether that was the case or not.”
Given the fact that the effect was stronger the longer a patient had been taking a statin, Dr. Wazni said that if a patient is tolerating the drug well, there should be no reason to discontinue it, regardless of age.
He said the study provides “welcome data and evidence because it’s pointing in the right direction,” but prospective studies would be useful “so that we can see what is driving what. Otherwise, this is just an association.”
The study was supported by Sanming Project Shenzhen. Ms. Huang and Dr. Wazni disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EHRA 2023
10 popular diets for heart health ranked
An evidence-based analysis of 10 popular dietary patterns shows that some promote heart health better than others.
A new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes that the Mediterranean, Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH), pescatarian, and vegetarian eating patterns most strongly align with heart-healthy eating guidelines issued by the AHA in 2021, whereas the popular paleolithic (paleo) and ketogenic (keto) diets fall short.
“The good news for the public and their clinicians is that there are several dietary patterns that allow for substantial flexibility for following a heart healthy diet – DASH, Mediterranean, vegetarian,” writing-group chair Christopher Gardner, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.
“However, some of the popular diets – particularly paleo and keto – are so strictly restrictive of specific food groups that when these diets are followed as intended by their proponents, they are not aligned with the scientific evidence for a heart-healthy diet,” Dr. Gardner said.
The statement was published online in Circulation.
A tool for clinicians
“The number of different, popular dietary patterns has proliferated in recent years, and the amount of misinformation about them on social media has reached critical levels,” Dr. Gardner said in a news release.
“The public – and even many health care professionals – may rightfully be confused about heart-healthy eating, and they may feel that they don’t have the time or the training to evaluate the different diets. We hope this statement serves as a tool for clinicians and the public to understand which diets promote good cardiometabolic health,” he noted.
The writing group rated on a scale of 1-100 how well 10 popular diets or eating patterns align with AHA dietary advice for heart-healthy eating.
That advice includes consuming a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; choosing mostly whole grains instead of refined grains; using liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils; eating healthy sources of protein, such as from plants, seafood, or lean meats; minimizing added sugars and salt; limiting alcohol; choosing minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods; and following this guidance wherever food is prepared or consumed.
The 10 diets/dietary patterns were DASH, Mediterranean-style, pescatarian, ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, very low–fat, low-carbohydrate, paleo, and very low–carbohydrate/keto patterns.
The diets were divided into four tiers on the basis of their scores, which ranged from a low of 31 to a high of 100.
Only the DASH eating plan got a perfect score of 100. This eating pattern is low in salt, added sugar, tropical oil, alcohol, and processed foods and high in nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Proteins are mostly plant-based, such as legumes, beans, or nuts, along with fish or seafood, lean poultry and meats, and low-fat or fat-free dairy products.
The Mediterranean eating pattern achieved a slightly lower score of 89 because unlike DASH, it allows for moderate alcohol consumption and does not address added salt.
The other two top tier eating patterns were pescatarian, with a score of 92, and vegetarian, with a score of 86.
“If implemented as intended, the top-tier dietary patterns align best with the American Heart Association’s guidance and may be adapted to respect cultural practices, food preferences and budgets to enable people to always eat this way, for the long term,” Dr. Gardner said in the release.
Vegan and low-fat diets (each with a score of 78) fell into the second tier.
Though these diets emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts while limiting alcohol and added sugars, the vegan diet is so restrictive that it could be challenging to follow long-term or when eating out and may increase the risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, which can lead to anemia, the writing group notes.
There also are concerns that low-fat diets treat all fats equally, whereas the AHA guidance calls for replacing saturated fats with healthier fats, they point out.
The third tier includes the very low–fat diet (score 72) and low-carb diet (score 64), whereas the paleo and very low–carb/keto diets fall into the fourth tier, with the lowest scores of 53 and 31, respectively.
Dr. Gardner said that it’s important to note that all 10 diet patterns “share four positive characteristics: more veggies, more whole foods, less added sugars, less refined grains.”
“These are all areas for which Americans have substantial room for improvement, and these are all things that we could work on together. Progress across these aspects would make a large difference in the heart-healthiness of the U.S. diet,” he told this news organization.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An evidence-based analysis of 10 popular dietary patterns shows that some promote heart health better than others.
A new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes that the Mediterranean, Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH), pescatarian, and vegetarian eating patterns most strongly align with heart-healthy eating guidelines issued by the AHA in 2021, whereas the popular paleolithic (paleo) and ketogenic (keto) diets fall short.
“The good news for the public and their clinicians is that there are several dietary patterns that allow for substantial flexibility for following a heart healthy diet – DASH, Mediterranean, vegetarian,” writing-group chair Christopher Gardner, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.
“However, some of the popular diets – particularly paleo and keto – are so strictly restrictive of specific food groups that when these diets are followed as intended by their proponents, they are not aligned with the scientific evidence for a heart-healthy diet,” Dr. Gardner said.
The statement was published online in Circulation.
A tool for clinicians
“The number of different, popular dietary patterns has proliferated in recent years, and the amount of misinformation about them on social media has reached critical levels,” Dr. Gardner said in a news release.
“The public – and even many health care professionals – may rightfully be confused about heart-healthy eating, and they may feel that they don’t have the time or the training to evaluate the different diets. We hope this statement serves as a tool for clinicians and the public to understand which diets promote good cardiometabolic health,” he noted.
The writing group rated on a scale of 1-100 how well 10 popular diets or eating patterns align with AHA dietary advice for heart-healthy eating.
That advice includes consuming a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; choosing mostly whole grains instead of refined grains; using liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils; eating healthy sources of protein, such as from plants, seafood, or lean meats; minimizing added sugars and salt; limiting alcohol; choosing minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods; and following this guidance wherever food is prepared or consumed.
The 10 diets/dietary patterns were DASH, Mediterranean-style, pescatarian, ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, very low–fat, low-carbohydrate, paleo, and very low–carbohydrate/keto patterns.
The diets were divided into four tiers on the basis of their scores, which ranged from a low of 31 to a high of 100.
Only the DASH eating plan got a perfect score of 100. This eating pattern is low in salt, added sugar, tropical oil, alcohol, and processed foods and high in nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Proteins are mostly plant-based, such as legumes, beans, or nuts, along with fish or seafood, lean poultry and meats, and low-fat or fat-free dairy products.
The Mediterranean eating pattern achieved a slightly lower score of 89 because unlike DASH, it allows for moderate alcohol consumption and does not address added salt.
The other two top tier eating patterns were pescatarian, with a score of 92, and vegetarian, with a score of 86.
“If implemented as intended, the top-tier dietary patterns align best with the American Heart Association’s guidance and may be adapted to respect cultural practices, food preferences and budgets to enable people to always eat this way, for the long term,” Dr. Gardner said in the release.
Vegan and low-fat diets (each with a score of 78) fell into the second tier.
Though these diets emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts while limiting alcohol and added sugars, the vegan diet is so restrictive that it could be challenging to follow long-term or when eating out and may increase the risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, which can lead to anemia, the writing group notes.
There also are concerns that low-fat diets treat all fats equally, whereas the AHA guidance calls for replacing saturated fats with healthier fats, they point out.
The third tier includes the very low–fat diet (score 72) and low-carb diet (score 64), whereas the paleo and very low–carb/keto diets fall into the fourth tier, with the lowest scores of 53 and 31, respectively.
Dr. Gardner said that it’s important to note that all 10 diet patterns “share four positive characteristics: more veggies, more whole foods, less added sugars, less refined grains.”
“These are all areas for which Americans have substantial room for improvement, and these are all things that we could work on together. Progress across these aspects would make a large difference in the heart-healthiness of the U.S. diet,” he told this news organization.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An evidence-based analysis of 10 popular dietary patterns shows that some promote heart health better than others.
A new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes that the Mediterranean, Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH), pescatarian, and vegetarian eating patterns most strongly align with heart-healthy eating guidelines issued by the AHA in 2021, whereas the popular paleolithic (paleo) and ketogenic (keto) diets fall short.
“The good news for the public and their clinicians is that there are several dietary patterns that allow for substantial flexibility for following a heart healthy diet – DASH, Mediterranean, vegetarian,” writing-group chair Christopher Gardner, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.
“However, some of the popular diets – particularly paleo and keto – are so strictly restrictive of specific food groups that when these diets are followed as intended by their proponents, they are not aligned with the scientific evidence for a heart-healthy diet,” Dr. Gardner said.
The statement was published online in Circulation.
A tool for clinicians
“The number of different, popular dietary patterns has proliferated in recent years, and the amount of misinformation about them on social media has reached critical levels,” Dr. Gardner said in a news release.
“The public – and even many health care professionals – may rightfully be confused about heart-healthy eating, and they may feel that they don’t have the time or the training to evaluate the different diets. We hope this statement serves as a tool for clinicians and the public to understand which diets promote good cardiometabolic health,” he noted.
The writing group rated on a scale of 1-100 how well 10 popular diets or eating patterns align with AHA dietary advice for heart-healthy eating.
That advice includes consuming a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; choosing mostly whole grains instead of refined grains; using liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils; eating healthy sources of protein, such as from plants, seafood, or lean meats; minimizing added sugars and salt; limiting alcohol; choosing minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods; and following this guidance wherever food is prepared or consumed.
The 10 diets/dietary patterns were DASH, Mediterranean-style, pescatarian, ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, very low–fat, low-carbohydrate, paleo, and very low–carbohydrate/keto patterns.
The diets were divided into four tiers on the basis of their scores, which ranged from a low of 31 to a high of 100.
Only the DASH eating plan got a perfect score of 100. This eating pattern is low in salt, added sugar, tropical oil, alcohol, and processed foods and high in nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Proteins are mostly plant-based, such as legumes, beans, or nuts, along with fish or seafood, lean poultry and meats, and low-fat or fat-free dairy products.
The Mediterranean eating pattern achieved a slightly lower score of 89 because unlike DASH, it allows for moderate alcohol consumption and does not address added salt.
The other two top tier eating patterns were pescatarian, with a score of 92, and vegetarian, with a score of 86.
“If implemented as intended, the top-tier dietary patterns align best with the American Heart Association’s guidance and may be adapted to respect cultural practices, food preferences and budgets to enable people to always eat this way, for the long term,” Dr. Gardner said in the release.
Vegan and low-fat diets (each with a score of 78) fell into the second tier.
Though these diets emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts while limiting alcohol and added sugars, the vegan diet is so restrictive that it could be challenging to follow long-term or when eating out and may increase the risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, which can lead to anemia, the writing group notes.
There also are concerns that low-fat diets treat all fats equally, whereas the AHA guidance calls for replacing saturated fats with healthier fats, they point out.
The third tier includes the very low–fat diet (score 72) and low-carb diet (score 64), whereas the paleo and very low–carb/keto diets fall into the fourth tier, with the lowest scores of 53 and 31, respectively.
Dr. Gardner said that it’s important to note that all 10 diet patterns “share four positive characteristics: more veggies, more whole foods, less added sugars, less refined grains.”
“These are all areas for which Americans have substantial room for improvement, and these are all things that we could work on together. Progress across these aspects would make a large difference in the heart-healthiness of the U.S. diet,” he told this news organization.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide scores win in second obesity trial, SURMOUNT-2
The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.
The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.
Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.
The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.
For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.
For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.
In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.
So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.
Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.
Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June
Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.
Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.
Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.
SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.
The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.
Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.
The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.
For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.
For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.
In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.
So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.
Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.
Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June
Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.
Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.
Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.
SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.
The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.
Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.
The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.
For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.
For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.
In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.
So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.
Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.
Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June
Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.
Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.
Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.
SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Meditation curbs stress, depression as adjunct to CAD rehab
Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.
An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”
Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.
Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.
Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.
At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.
In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.
The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
Motivation makes a difference
The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.
“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”
However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.
Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.
“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”
The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.
However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”
The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.
“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
Data support patient engagement
The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”
Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.
The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.
Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.
An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”
Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.
Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.
Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.
At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.
In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.
The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
Motivation makes a difference
The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.
“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”
However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.
Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.
“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”
The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.
However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”
The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.
“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
Data support patient engagement
The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”
Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.
The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.
Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.
An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”
Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.
Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.
Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.
At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.
In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.
The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
Motivation makes a difference
The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.
“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”
However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.
Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.
“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”
The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.
However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”
The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.
“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
Data support patient engagement
The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”
Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.
The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ESC PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY 2023
Green Mediterranean diet may relieve aortic stiffness
A green adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet improves proximal aortic stiffness (PAS), a distinct marker of vascular aging and increased cardiovascular risk, according to an exploratory post hoc analysis of the DIRECT-PLUS randomized clinical trial.
The green Mediterranean diet is distinct from the traditional Mediterranean diet because of its more abundant dietary polyphenols, from green tea and a Wolffia globosa (Mankai) plant green shake, and lower intake of red or processed meat.
Independent of weight loss, the modified green Mediterranean diet regressed PAS by 15%, the traditional Mediterranean diet by 7.3%, and the healthy dietary guideline–based diet by 4.8%, the study team observed.
“The DIRECT-PLUS trial research team was the first to introduce the concept of the green-Mediterranean/high polyphenols diet,” lead researcher Iris Shai, RD, PhD, with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, told this news organization.
This diet promoted “dramatic proximal aortic de-stiffening” as assessed by MRI over 18 months in roughly 300 participants with abdominal obesity/dyslipidemia. “To date, no dietary strategies have been shown to impact vascular aging physiology,” Dr. Shai said.
The analysis was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Not all healthy diets are equal
Of the 294 participants, 281 had valid PAS measurements at baseline. The baseline PAS (6.1 m/s) was similar across intervention groups (P = .20). Increased PAS was associated with aging, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and visceral adiposity (P < .05).
After 18 months’ intervention (retention rate 89.8%), all diet groups showed significant PAS reductions: –0.05 m/s with the standard healthy diet (4.8%), –0.08 m/s with the traditional Mediterranean diet (7.3%) and –0.15 the green Mediterranean diet (15%).
In the multivariable model, the green Mediterranean dieters had greater PAS reduction than did the healthy-diet and Mediterranean dieters (P = .003 and P = .032, respectively).
The researchers caution that DIRECT-PLUS had multiple endpoints and this exploratory post hoc analysis might be sensitive to type I statistical error and should be considered “hypothesis-generating.”
High-quality study, believable results
Reached for comment on the study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York, said, “There is not a lot of high-quality research on diet, and I would call this high-quality research in as much as they used randomization which most dietary studies don’t do.
“The greener Mediterranean diet seemed to be the best one on the surrogate marker of MRI-defined aortic stiffness,” Dr. Bhatt, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
“It makes sense that a diet that has more green in it, more polyphenols, would be healthier. This has been shown in some other studies, that these plant-based polyphenols might have various cardiovascular protective aspects to them,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Overall, he said the results are “quite believable, with the caveat that it would be nice to see the results reproduced in a more diverse and larger sample.”
“There is emerging evidence that diets that are higher in fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains and lower in overall caloric intake, in general, seem to be good diets to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and maybe even reduce actual cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Bhatt added.
The study was funded by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), the Rosetrees Trust, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnuts Commission. Dr. Shai and Dr. Bhatt have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A green adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet improves proximal aortic stiffness (PAS), a distinct marker of vascular aging and increased cardiovascular risk, according to an exploratory post hoc analysis of the DIRECT-PLUS randomized clinical trial.
The green Mediterranean diet is distinct from the traditional Mediterranean diet because of its more abundant dietary polyphenols, from green tea and a Wolffia globosa (Mankai) plant green shake, and lower intake of red or processed meat.
Independent of weight loss, the modified green Mediterranean diet regressed PAS by 15%, the traditional Mediterranean diet by 7.3%, and the healthy dietary guideline–based diet by 4.8%, the study team observed.
“The DIRECT-PLUS trial research team was the first to introduce the concept of the green-Mediterranean/high polyphenols diet,” lead researcher Iris Shai, RD, PhD, with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, told this news organization.
This diet promoted “dramatic proximal aortic de-stiffening” as assessed by MRI over 18 months in roughly 300 participants with abdominal obesity/dyslipidemia. “To date, no dietary strategies have been shown to impact vascular aging physiology,” Dr. Shai said.
The analysis was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Not all healthy diets are equal
Of the 294 participants, 281 had valid PAS measurements at baseline. The baseline PAS (6.1 m/s) was similar across intervention groups (P = .20). Increased PAS was associated with aging, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and visceral adiposity (P < .05).
After 18 months’ intervention (retention rate 89.8%), all diet groups showed significant PAS reductions: –0.05 m/s with the standard healthy diet (4.8%), –0.08 m/s with the traditional Mediterranean diet (7.3%) and –0.15 the green Mediterranean diet (15%).
In the multivariable model, the green Mediterranean dieters had greater PAS reduction than did the healthy-diet and Mediterranean dieters (P = .003 and P = .032, respectively).
The researchers caution that DIRECT-PLUS had multiple endpoints and this exploratory post hoc analysis might be sensitive to type I statistical error and should be considered “hypothesis-generating.”
High-quality study, believable results
Reached for comment on the study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York, said, “There is not a lot of high-quality research on diet, and I would call this high-quality research in as much as they used randomization which most dietary studies don’t do.
“The greener Mediterranean diet seemed to be the best one on the surrogate marker of MRI-defined aortic stiffness,” Dr. Bhatt, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
“It makes sense that a diet that has more green in it, more polyphenols, would be healthier. This has been shown in some other studies, that these plant-based polyphenols might have various cardiovascular protective aspects to them,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Overall, he said the results are “quite believable, with the caveat that it would be nice to see the results reproduced in a more diverse and larger sample.”
“There is emerging evidence that diets that are higher in fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains and lower in overall caloric intake, in general, seem to be good diets to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and maybe even reduce actual cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Bhatt added.
The study was funded by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), the Rosetrees Trust, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnuts Commission. Dr. Shai and Dr. Bhatt have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A green adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet improves proximal aortic stiffness (PAS), a distinct marker of vascular aging and increased cardiovascular risk, according to an exploratory post hoc analysis of the DIRECT-PLUS randomized clinical trial.
The green Mediterranean diet is distinct from the traditional Mediterranean diet because of its more abundant dietary polyphenols, from green tea and a Wolffia globosa (Mankai) plant green shake, and lower intake of red or processed meat.
Independent of weight loss, the modified green Mediterranean diet regressed PAS by 15%, the traditional Mediterranean diet by 7.3%, and the healthy dietary guideline–based diet by 4.8%, the study team observed.
“The DIRECT-PLUS trial research team was the first to introduce the concept of the green-Mediterranean/high polyphenols diet,” lead researcher Iris Shai, RD, PhD, with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, told this news organization.
This diet promoted “dramatic proximal aortic de-stiffening” as assessed by MRI over 18 months in roughly 300 participants with abdominal obesity/dyslipidemia. “To date, no dietary strategies have been shown to impact vascular aging physiology,” Dr. Shai said.
The analysis was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Not all healthy diets are equal
Of the 294 participants, 281 had valid PAS measurements at baseline. The baseline PAS (6.1 m/s) was similar across intervention groups (P = .20). Increased PAS was associated with aging, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and visceral adiposity (P < .05).
After 18 months’ intervention (retention rate 89.8%), all diet groups showed significant PAS reductions: –0.05 m/s with the standard healthy diet (4.8%), –0.08 m/s with the traditional Mediterranean diet (7.3%) and –0.15 the green Mediterranean diet (15%).
In the multivariable model, the green Mediterranean dieters had greater PAS reduction than did the healthy-diet and Mediterranean dieters (P = .003 and P = .032, respectively).
The researchers caution that DIRECT-PLUS had multiple endpoints and this exploratory post hoc analysis might be sensitive to type I statistical error and should be considered “hypothesis-generating.”
High-quality study, believable results
Reached for comment on the study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York, said, “There is not a lot of high-quality research on diet, and I would call this high-quality research in as much as they used randomization which most dietary studies don’t do.
“The greener Mediterranean diet seemed to be the best one on the surrogate marker of MRI-defined aortic stiffness,” Dr. Bhatt, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
“It makes sense that a diet that has more green in it, more polyphenols, would be healthier. This has been shown in some other studies, that these plant-based polyphenols might have various cardiovascular protective aspects to them,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Overall, he said the results are “quite believable, with the caveat that it would be nice to see the results reproduced in a more diverse and larger sample.”
“There is emerging evidence that diets that are higher in fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains and lower in overall caloric intake, in general, seem to be good diets to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and maybe even reduce actual cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Bhatt added.
The study was funded by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), the Rosetrees Trust, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnuts Commission. Dr. Shai and Dr. Bhatt have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.