MDedge Cardiology

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.

Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.

“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.

“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”

Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.

Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.

An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.

“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”

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

Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.

Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.

“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.

“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”

Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.

Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.

An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.

“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”

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

Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.

Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.

“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”

The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.

“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”

Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.

Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.

An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.

“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”

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

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.

Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.

Click_and_Photo/Thinkstock

‘An idea whose time has come?’

Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”

The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.

Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.

Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.

As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.

But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”

Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”

Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.

“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
 

What to do with the data?

The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.

Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.  

Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”

He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”

In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”

Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.

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

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.

Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.

Click_and_Photo/Thinkstock

‘An idea whose time has come?’

Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”

The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.

Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.

Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.

As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.

But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”

Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”

Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.

“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
 

What to do with the data?

The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.

Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.  

Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”

He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”

In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”

Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.

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

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.

Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.

Click_and_Photo/Thinkstock

‘An idea whose time has come?’

Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”

The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.

Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.

Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.

As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.

But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”

Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”

Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.

“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
 

What to do with the data?

The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.

Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.  

Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”

He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”

In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”

Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.

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

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.

Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge

Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.

“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”

By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).

In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.

In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
 

Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint

In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.

The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.

Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.

At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.

At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).

In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).

The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.

For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.

Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
 

Ablation found safer than drugs

The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.

There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.

Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.

However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.

The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.

Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.

Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge

Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.

“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”

By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).

In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.

In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
 

Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint

In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.

The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.

Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.

At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.

At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).

In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).

The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.

For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.

Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
 

Ablation found safer than drugs

The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.

There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.

Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.

However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.

The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.

Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.

Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge

Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.

“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”

By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).

In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.

In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
 

Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint

In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.

The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.

Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.

At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.

At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).

In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).

The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.

For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.

Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
 

Ablation found safer than drugs

The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.

There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.

Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.

However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.

The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.

Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


Who watches the ED staff?

We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.

A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”

Chinnapong/iStock/Getty Images

“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”

“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”

“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.

“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”

“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.

“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”

“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.

“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”

“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”

The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”

Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.

Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering

When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.

In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.

Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.

Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.

So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.

Consider this myth mostly busted.
 

COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2

The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.

The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.

They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.

The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”

Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.

At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.

Who watches the ED staff?

We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.

A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”

Chinnapong/iStock/Getty Images

“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”

“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”

“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.

“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”

“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.

“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”

“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.

“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”

“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”

The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”

Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.

Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering

When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.

In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.

Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.

Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.

So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.

Consider this myth mostly busted.
 

COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2

The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.

The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.

They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.

The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”

Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.

At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.

Who watches the ED staff?

We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.

A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”

Chinnapong/iStock/Getty Images

“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”

“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”

“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.

“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”

“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.

“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”

“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.

“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”

“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”

The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”

Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.

Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering

When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.

In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.

Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.

Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.

So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.

Consider this myth mostly busted.
 

COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2

The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.

The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.

They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.

The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”

Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.

At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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