MDedge Cardiology

Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.

“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

a_namenko/Getty Images

“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.

Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.

In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.

“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”

He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.” 

For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.

They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.

On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.

Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).

Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).

Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004).  Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).

After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.

After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
 

‘Closer monitoring needed’

“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”

He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.

“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”

He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001). 

“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”

Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.

“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
 

Jury still out

Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”

Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.  

“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said. 

“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.

The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.

“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

a_namenko/Getty Images

“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.

Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.

In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.

“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”

He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.” 

For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.

They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.

On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.

Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).

Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).

Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004).  Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).

After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.

After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
 

‘Closer monitoring needed’

“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”

He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.

“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”

He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001). 

“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”

Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.

“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
 

Jury still out

Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”

Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.  

“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said. 

“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.

The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.

“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

a_namenko/Getty Images

“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.

Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.

In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.

“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”

He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.” 

For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.

They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.

On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.

Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).

Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).

Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004).  Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).

After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.

After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
 

‘Closer monitoring needed’

“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”

He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.

“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”

He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001). 

“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”

Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.

“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
 

Jury still out

Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”

Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.  

“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said. 

“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.

The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A physician’s specialty can make a difference when it comes to having suicidal thoughts. Doctors who specialize in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry reported double the rates of suicidal thoughts than doctors in oncology, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine, according to Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023.

“The specialties with the highest reporting of physician suicidal thoughts are also those with the greatest physician shortages, based on the number of job openings posted by recruiting sites,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at UC Davis Health.

Doctors in those specialties are overworked, which can lead to burnout, he said. “While burnout doesn’t cause depression, it’s correlated with depression and suicidal ideation.”

There’s also a generational divide among physicians who reported suicidal thoughts. Millennials (age 27-41) and Gen-X physicians (age 42-56) were more likely to report these thoughts than were Baby Boomers (age 57-75) and the Silent Generation (age 76-95).

“Younger physicians are more burned out – they may have less control over their lives and less meaning than some older doctors who can do what they want,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

One millennial respondent commented that being on call and being required to chart detailed notes in the EHR has contributed to her burnout. “I’m more impatient and make less time and effort to see my friends and family.”

One Silent Generation respondent commented, “I am semi-retired, I take no call, I work no weekends, I provide anesthesia care in my area of special expertise, I work clinically about 46 days a year. Life is good, particularly compared to my younger colleagues who are working 60-plus hours a week with evening work, weekend work, and call. I feel really sorry for them.”    

When young people enter medical school, they’re quite healthy, with low rates of depression and burnout, said Dr. Yellowlees. Yet, studies have shown that rates of burnout and suicidal thoughts increased within 2 years. “That reflects what happens when a group of idealistic young people hit a horrible system,” he said.
 

Who’s responsible?

Millennials were three times as likely as baby boomers to say that a medical school or health care organization should be responsible when a student or physician commits suicide.

“Young physicians may expect more of their employers than my generation did, which we see in residency programs that have unionized,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a Baby Boomer.

“As more young doctors are employed by health care organizations, they also may expect more resources to be available to them, such as wellness programs,” he added.

Younger doctors also focus more on work-life balance than older doctors, including time off and having hobbies, he said. “They are much more rational in terms of their overall beliefs and expectations than the older generation.”
 

Whom doctors confide in

Nearly 60% of physician-respondents with suicidal thoughts said they confided in a professional or someone they knew. Men were just as likely as women to reach out to a therapist (38%), whereas men were slightly more likely to confide in a family member and women were slightly more likely to confide in a colleague.

“It’s interesting that women are more active in seeking support at work – they often have developed a network of colleagues to support each other’s careers and whom they can confide in,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He emphasized that 40% of physicians said they didn’t confide in anyone when they had suicidal thoughts. Of those, just over half said they could cope without professional help.

One respondent commented, “It’s just a thought; nothing I would actually do.” Another commented, “Mental health professionals can’t fix the underlying reason for the problem.”

Many doctors were concerned about risking disclosure to their medical boards (42%); that it would show up on their insurance records (33%); and that their colleagues would find out (25%), according to the report.

One respondent commented, “I don’t trust doctors to keep it to themselves.”

Another barrier doctors mentioned was a lack of time to seek help. One commented, “Time. I have none, when am I supposed to find an hour for counseling?”

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

A physician’s specialty can make a difference when it comes to having suicidal thoughts. Doctors who specialize in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry reported double the rates of suicidal thoughts than doctors in oncology, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine, according to Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023.

“The specialties with the highest reporting of physician suicidal thoughts are also those with the greatest physician shortages, based on the number of job openings posted by recruiting sites,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at UC Davis Health.

Doctors in those specialties are overworked, which can lead to burnout, he said. “While burnout doesn’t cause depression, it’s correlated with depression and suicidal ideation.”

There’s also a generational divide among physicians who reported suicidal thoughts. Millennials (age 27-41) and Gen-X physicians (age 42-56) were more likely to report these thoughts than were Baby Boomers (age 57-75) and the Silent Generation (age 76-95).

“Younger physicians are more burned out – they may have less control over their lives and less meaning than some older doctors who can do what they want,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

One millennial respondent commented that being on call and being required to chart detailed notes in the EHR has contributed to her burnout. “I’m more impatient and make less time and effort to see my friends and family.”

One Silent Generation respondent commented, “I am semi-retired, I take no call, I work no weekends, I provide anesthesia care in my area of special expertise, I work clinically about 46 days a year. Life is good, particularly compared to my younger colleagues who are working 60-plus hours a week with evening work, weekend work, and call. I feel really sorry for them.”    

When young people enter medical school, they’re quite healthy, with low rates of depression and burnout, said Dr. Yellowlees. Yet, studies have shown that rates of burnout and suicidal thoughts increased within 2 years. “That reflects what happens when a group of idealistic young people hit a horrible system,” he said.
 

Who’s responsible?

Millennials were three times as likely as baby boomers to say that a medical school or health care organization should be responsible when a student or physician commits suicide.

“Young physicians may expect more of their employers than my generation did, which we see in residency programs that have unionized,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a Baby Boomer.

“As more young doctors are employed by health care organizations, they also may expect more resources to be available to them, such as wellness programs,” he added.

Younger doctors also focus more on work-life balance than older doctors, including time off and having hobbies, he said. “They are much more rational in terms of their overall beliefs and expectations than the older generation.”
 

Whom doctors confide in

Nearly 60% of physician-respondents with suicidal thoughts said they confided in a professional or someone they knew. Men were just as likely as women to reach out to a therapist (38%), whereas men were slightly more likely to confide in a family member and women were slightly more likely to confide in a colleague.

“It’s interesting that women are more active in seeking support at work – they often have developed a network of colleagues to support each other’s careers and whom they can confide in,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He emphasized that 40% of physicians said they didn’t confide in anyone when they had suicidal thoughts. Of those, just over half said they could cope without professional help.

One respondent commented, “It’s just a thought; nothing I would actually do.” Another commented, “Mental health professionals can’t fix the underlying reason for the problem.”

Many doctors were concerned about risking disclosure to their medical boards (42%); that it would show up on their insurance records (33%); and that their colleagues would find out (25%), according to the report.

One respondent commented, “I don’t trust doctors to keep it to themselves.”

Another barrier doctors mentioned was a lack of time to seek help. One commented, “Time. I have none, when am I supposed to find an hour for counseling?”

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

A physician’s specialty can make a difference when it comes to having suicidal thoughts. Doctors who specialize in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry reported double the rates of suicidal thoughts than doctors in oncology, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine, according to Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023.

“The specialties with the highest reporting of physician suicidal thoughts are also those with the greatest physician shortages, based on the number of job openings posted by recruiting sites,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at UC Davis Health.

Doctors in those specialties are overworked, which can lead to burnout, he said. “While burnout doesn’t cause depression, it’s correlated with depression and suicidal ideation.”

There’s also a generational divide among physicians who reported suicidal thoughts. Millennials (age 27-41) and Gen-X physicians (age 42-56) were more likely to report these thoughts than were Baby Boomers (age 57-75) and the Silent Generation (age 76-95).

“Younger physicians are more burned out – they may have less control over their lives and less meaning than some older doctors who can do what they want,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

One millennial respondent commented that being on call and being required to chart detailed notes in the EHR has contributed to her burnout. “I’m more impatient and make less time and effort to see my friends and family.”

One Silent Generation respondent commented, “I am semi-retired, I take no call, I work no weekends, I provide anesthesia care in my area of special expertise, I work clinically about 46 days a year. Life is good, particularly compared to my younger colleagues who are working 60-plus hours a week with evening work, weekend work, and call. I feel really sorry for them.”    

When young people enter medical school, they’re quite healthy, with low rates of depression and burnout, said Dr. Yellowlees. Yet, studies have shown that rates of burnout and suicidal thoughts increased within 2 years. “That reflects what happens when a group of idealistic young people hit a horrible system,” he said.
 

Who’s responsible?

Millennials were three times as likely as baby boomers to say that a medical school or health care organization should be responsible when a student or physician commits suicide.

“Young physicians may expect more of their employers than my generation did, which we see in residency programs that have unionized,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a Baby Boomer.

“As more young doctors are employed by health care organizations, they also may expect more resources to be available to them, such as wellness programs,” he added.

Younger doctors also focus more on work-life balance than older doctors, including time off and having hobbies, he said. “They are much more rational in terms of their overall beliefs and expectations than the older generation.”
 

Whom doctors confide in

Nearly 60% of physician-respondents with suicidal thoughts said they confided in a professional or someone they knew. Men were just as likely as women to reach out to a therapist (38%), whereas men were slightly more likely to confide in a family member and women were slightly more likely to confide in a colleague.

“It’s interesting that women are more active in seeking support at work – they often have developed a network of colleagues to support each other’s careers and whom they can confide in,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He emphasized that 40% of physicians said they didn’t confide in anyone when they had suicidal thoughts. Of those, just over half said they could cope without professional help.

One respondent commented, “It’s just a thought; nothing I would actually do.” Another commented, “Mental health professionals can’t fix the underlying reason for the problem.”

Many doctors were concerned about risking disclosure to their medical boards (42%); that it would show up on their insurance records (33%); and that their colleagues would find out (25%), according to the report.

One respondent commented, “I don’t trust doctors to keep it to themselves.”

Another barrier doctors mentioned was a lack of time to seek help. One commented, “Time. I have none, when am I supposed to find an hour for counseling?”

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

At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.

Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge Cardiology

The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.

The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.

“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.

Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.

For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).

More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.

In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).

Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.

Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.

The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.

“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”

Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.

Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.

Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.

Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge Cardiology

The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.

The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.

“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.

Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.

For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).

More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.

In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).

Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.

Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.

The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.

“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”

Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.

Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.

Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.

Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge Cardiology

The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.

The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.

“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.

Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.

For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).

More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.

In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.

The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).

Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.

Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.

The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.

“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”

Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.

Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.

Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.

FatCamera/Getty Images

The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.

CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.

The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.

Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.

The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.

In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.

Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.

The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.

For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.

Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).

Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.

The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.

More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.

“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.

People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.

FatCamera/Getty Images

The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.

CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.

The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.

Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.

The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.

In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.

Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.

The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.

For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.

Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).

Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.

The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.

More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.

“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.

People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.

FatCamera/Getty Images

The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.

CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.

The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.

Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.

The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.

In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.

Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.

The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.

For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.

Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).

Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.

The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.

More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.

“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.

People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Pulmonary function was significantly associated with frailty in community-dwelling older adults over a 5-year period, as indicated by data from more than 1,000 individuals.

The pulmonary function test has been proposed as a predictive tool for clinical outcomes in geriatrics, including hospitalization, mortality, and frailty, but data on the relationship between pulmonary function and frailty in community-dwelling adults are limited and inconsistent, write Walter Sepulveda-Loyola, MD, of Universidad de Las Americas, Santiago, Chile, and colleagues.

In an observational study published in Heart and Lung, the researchers reviewed data from adults older than 64 years who were participants in the Toledo Study for Healthy Aging.

The study population included 1,188 older adults (mean age, 74 years; 54% women). The prevalence of frailty at baseline ranged from 7% to 26%.

Frailty was defined using the frailty phenotype (FP) and the Frailty Trait Scale 5 (FTS5). Pulmonary function was determined on the basis of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), using spirometry.

Overall, at the 5-year follow-up, FEV1 and FVC were inversely associated with prevalence and incidence of frailty in nonadjusted and adjusted models using FP and FTS5.

In adjusted models, FEV1 and FVC, as well as FEV1 and FVC percent predicted value, were significantly associated with the prevalence of frailty, with odds ratios ranging from 0.53 to 0.99. FEV1 and FVC were significantly associated with increased incidence of frailty, with odds ratios ranging from 0.49 to 0.50 (P < .05 for both).

Pulmonary function also was associated with prevalent and incident frailty, hospitalization, and mortality in regression models, including the whole sample and after respiratory diseases were excluded.

Pulmonary function measures below the cutoff points for FEV1 and FVC were significantly associated with frailty, as well as with hospitalization and mortality. The cutoff points for FEV1 were 1.805 L for men and 1.165 L for women; cutoff points for FVC were 2.385 L for men and 1.585 L for women.

“Pulmonary function should be evaluated not only in frail patients, with the aim of detecting patients with poor prognoses regardless of their comorbidity, but also in individuals who are not frail but have an increased risk of developing frailty, as well as other adverse events,” the researchers write.

The study findings were limited by lack of data on pulmonary function variables outside of spirometry and by the need for data from populations with different characteristics to assess whether the same cutoff points are predictive of frailty, the researchers note.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and additional analysis that excluded other respiratory diseases. Future research should consider adding pulmonary function assessment to the frailty model, the authors write.

Given the relationship between pulmonary function and physical capacity, the current study supports more frequent evaluation of pulmonary function in clinical practice for older adults, including those with no pulmonary disease, they conclude.

The study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness, financed by the European Regional Development Funds, and the Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red en Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable and the Fundacion Francisco Soria Melguizo. Lead author Dr. Sepulveda-Loyola was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

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

Pulmonary function was significantly associated with frailty in community-dwelling older adults over a 5-year period, as indicated by data from more than 1,000 individuals.

The pulmonary function test has been proposed as a predictive tool for clinical outcomes in geriatrics, including hospitalization, mortality, and frailty, but data on the relationship between pulmonary function and frailty in community-dwelling adults are limited and inconsistent, write Walter Sepulveda-Loyola, MD, of Universidad de Las Americas, Santiago, Chile, and colleagues.

In an observational study published in Heart and Lung, the researchers reviewed data from adults older than 64 years who were participants in the Toledo Study for Healthy Aging.

The study population included 1,188 older adults (mean age, 74 years; 54% women). The prevalence of frailty at baseline ranged from 7% to 26%.

Frailty was defined using the frailty phenotype (FP) and the Frailty Trait Scale 5 (FTS5). Pulmonary function was determined on the basis of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), using spirometry.

Overall, at the 5-year follow-up, FEV1 and FVC were inversely associated with prevalence and incidence of frailty in nonadjusted and adjusted models using FP and FTS5.

In adjusted models, FEV1 and FVC, as well as FEV1 and FVC percent predicted value, were significantly associated with the prevalence of frailty, with odds ratios ranging from 0.53 to 0.99. FEV1 and FVC were significantly associated with increased incidence of frailty, with odds ratios ranging from 0.49 to 0.50 (P < .05 for both).

Pulmonary function also was associated with prevalent and incident frailty, hospitalization, and mortality in regression models, including the whole sample and after respiratory diseases were excluded.

Pulmonary function measures below the cutoff points for FEV1 and FVC were significantly associated with frailty, as well as with hospitalization and mortality. The cutoff points for FEV1 were 1.805 L for men and 1.165 L for women; cutoff points for FVC were 2.385 L for men and 1.585 L for women.

“Pulmonary function should be evaluated not only in frail patients, with the aim of detecting patients with poor prognoses regardless of their comorbidity, but also in individuals who are not frail but have an increased risk of developing frailty, as well as other adverse events,” the researchers write.

The study findings were limited by lack of data on pulmonary function variables outside of spirometry and by the need for data from populations with different characteristics to assess whether the same cutoff points are predictive of frailty, the researchers note.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and additional analysis that excluded other respiratory diseases. Future research should consider adding pulmonary function assessment to the frailty model, the authors write.

Given the relationship between pulmonary function and physical capacity, the current study supports more frequent evaluation of pulmonary function in clinical practice for older adults, including those with no pulmonary disease, they conclude.

The study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness, financed by the European Regional Development Funds, and the Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red en Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable and the Fundacion Francisco Soria Melguizo. Lead author Dr. Sepulveda-Loyola was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

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

Pulmonary function was significantly associated with frailty in community-dwelling older adults over a 5-year period, as indicated by data from more than 1,000 individuals.

The pulmonary function test has been proposed as a predictive tool for clinical outcomes in geriatrics, including hospitalization, mortality, and frailty, but data on the relationship between pulmonary function and frailty in community-dwelling adults are limited and inconsistent, write Walter Sepulveda-Loyola, MD, of Universidad de Las Americas, Santiago, Chile, and colleagues.

In an observational study published in Heart and Lung, the researchers reviewed data from adults older than 64 years who were participants in the Toledo Study for Healthy Aging.

The study population included 1,188 older adults (mean age, 74 years; 54% women). The prevalence of frailty at baseline ranged from 7% to 26%.

Frailty was defined using the frailty phenotype (FP) and the Frailty Trait Scale 5 (FTS5). Pulmonary function was determined on the basis of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), using spirometry.

Overall, at the 5-year follow-up, FEV1 and FVC were inversely associated with prevalence and incidence of frailty in nonadjusted and adjusted models using FP and FTS5.

In adjusted models, FEV1 and FVC, as well as FEV1 and FVC percent predicted value, were significantly associated with the prevalence of frailty, with odds ratios ranging from 0.53 to 0.99. FEV1 and FVC were significantly associated with increased incidence of frailty, with odds ratios ranging from 0.49 to 0.50 (P < .05 for both).

Pulmonary function also was associated with prevalent and incident frailty, hospitalization, and mortality in regression models, including the whole sample and after respiratory diseases were excluded.

Pulmonary function measures below the cutoff points for FEV1 and FVC were significantly associated with frailty, as well as with hospitalization and mortality. The cutoff points for FEV1 were 1.805 L for men and 1.165 L for women; cutoff points for FVC were 2.385 L for men and 1.585 L for women.

“Pulmonary function should be evaluated not only in frail patients, with the aim of detecting patients with poor prognoses regardless of their comorbidity, but also in individuals who are not frail but have an increased risk of developing frailty, as well as other adverse events,” the researchers write.

The study findings were limited by lack of data on pulmonary function variables outside of spirometry and by the need for data from populations with different characteristics to assess whether the same cutoff points are predictive of frailty, the researchers note.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and additional analysis that excluded other respiratory diseases. Future research should consider adding pulmonary function assessment to the frailty model, the authors write.

Given the relationship between pulmonary function and physical capacity, the current study supports more frequent evaluation of pulmonary function in clinical practice for older adults, including those with no pulmonary disease, they conclude.

The study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness, financed by the European Regional Development Funds, and the Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red en Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable and the Fundacion Francisco Soria Melguizo. Lead author Dr. Sepulveda-Loyola was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.