MDedge Cardiology

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Labeling for a Medtronic pacing lead, already indicated for stimulation of the His bundle, has been expanded to include the left bundle branch (LBB), the company announced on Oct. 17.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously expanded the Medtronic SelectSecure MRI SureScan Model 3830 lead’s approval in 2018 to include His-bundle pacing. “Now this cardiac lead is approved for pacing and sensing at the bundle of His or in the left bundle branch area as an alternative to apical pacing in the right ventricle in a single- or dual-chamber pacing system,” Medtronic states in a press release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

Labeling for a Medtronic pacing lead, already indicated for stimulation of the His bundle, has been expanded to include the left bundle branch (LBB), the company announced on Oct. 17.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously expanded the Medtronic SelectSecure MRI SureScan Model 3830 lead’s approval in 2018 to include His-bundle pacing. “Now this cardiac lead is approved for pacing and sensing at the bundle of His or in the left bundle branch area as an alternative to apical pacing in the right ventricle in a single- or dual-chamber pacing system,” Medtronic states in a press release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

Labeling for a Medtronic pacing lead, already indicated for stimulation of the His bundle, has been expanded to include the left bundle branch (LBB), the company announced on Oct. 17.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously expanded the Medtronic SelectSecure MRI SureScan Model 3830 lead’s approval in 2018 to include His-bundle pacing. “Now this cardiac lead is approved for pacing and sensing at the bundle of His or in the left bundle branch area as an alternative to apical pacing in the right ventricle in a single- or dual-chamber pacing system,” Medtronic states in a press release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

Insulin rationing due to cost in the United States is common even among people with diabetes who have private health insurance, new data show.

The findings from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) suggest that about one in six people with insulin-treated diabetes in the United States practice insulin rationing – skipping doses, taking less insulin than needed, or delaying the purchase of insulin – because of the price.

Not surprisingly, those without insurance had the highest rationing rate, at nearly a third. However, those with private insurance also had higher rates, at nearly one in five, than those of the overall diabetes population. And those with public insurance – Medicare and Medicaid – had lower rates.

The finding regarding privately insured individuals was “somewhat surprising,” lead author Adam Gaffney, MD, told this news organization. But he noted that the finding likely reflects issues such as copays and deductibles, along with other barriers patients experience within the private health insurance system.

The authors pointed out that the $35 copay cap on insulin included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 might improve insulin access for Medicare beneficiaries but a similar cap for privately insured people was removed from the bill. Moreover, copay caps don’t help people who are uninsured.

And, although some states have also passed insulin copay caps that apply to privately insured people, “even a monthly cost of $35 can be a lot of money for people with low incomes. That isn’t negligible. It’s important to keep that in mind,” said Dr. Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance.

“Insulin rationing is frequently harmful and sometimes deadly. In the ICU, I have cared for patients who have life-threatening complications of diabetes because they couldn’t afford this life-saving drug. Universal access to insulin, without cost barriers, is urgently needed,” Dr. Gaffney said in a Public Citizen statement.

Senior author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, agrees. “Drug companies have ramped up prices on insulin year after year, even for products that remain completely unchanged,” she noted.

“Drug firms are making vast profits at the expense of the health, and even the lives, of patients,” noted Dr. Woolhandler, a distinguished professor at Hunter College, City University of New York, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard, and a research associate at Public Citizen.
 

Uninsured, privately insured, and younger people more likely to ration

Dr. Gaffney and colleagues’ findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is the first to examine insulin rationing across the United States among people with all diabetes types treated with insulin using the nationally representative NHIS data.

The results are consistent with those of previous studies, which have found similar rates of insulin rationing at a single U.S. institution and internationally among just those with type 1 diabetes, Dr. Gaffney noted.

In 2021, questions about insulin rationing were added to the NHIS for the first time.

The sample included 982 insulin users with diabetes, representing about 1.4 million U.S. adults with type 1 diabetes, 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes, and 0.4 million with other/unknown types.

Overall, 16.5% of participants – 1.3 million nationwide – reported skipping or reducing insulin doses or delaying the purchase of it in the past year. Delaying purchase was the most common type of rationing, reported by 14.2%, while taking less than needed was the most common practice among those with type 1 diabetes (16.5%).

Age made a difference, with 11.2% of adults aged 65 or older versus 20.4% of younger people reporting rationing. And by income level, even among those at the top level examined – 400% or higher of the federal poverty line – 10.8% reported rationing.

“The high-income group is not necessarily rich. Many would be considered middle-income,” Dr. Gaffney pointed out.  

By race, 23.2% of Black participants reported rationing compared with 16.0% of White and Hispanic individuals.

People without insurance had the highest rationing rate (29.2%), followed by those with private insurance (18.8%), other coverage (16.1%), Medicare (13.5%), and Medicaid (11.6%).
 

‘It’s a complicated system’

Dr. Gaffney noted that even when the patient has private insurance, it’s challenging for the clinician to know in advance whether there are formulary restrictions on what type of insulin can be prescribed or what the patient’s copay or deductible will be.

“Often the prescription gets written without clear knowledge of coverage beforehand ... Coverage differs from patient to patient, from insurance to insurance. It’s a complicated system.”

He added, though, that some electronic health records (EHRs) incorporate this information. “Currently, some EHRs give real-time feedback. I see no reason why, for all the money we plug into these EHRs, there couldn’t be real-time feedback for every patient so you know what the copay is and whether it’s covered at the time you’re prescribing it. To me that’s a very straightforward technological fix that we could achieve. We have the information, but it’s hard to act on it.”

But beyond the EHR, “there are also problems when the patient’s insurance changes or their network changes, and what insulin is covered changes. And they don’t necessarily get that new prescription in time. And suddenly they have a gap. Gaps can be dangerous.”  

What’s more, Dr. Gaffney noted: “The study raises concerning questions about what happens when the public health emergency ends and millions of people with Medicaid lose their coverage. Where are they going to get insulin? That’s another population we have to be worried about.”

All of this puts clinicians in a difficult spot, he said.

“They want the best for their patients but they’re working in a system that’s not letting them focus on practicing medicine and instead is forcing them to think about these economic issues that are in large part out of their control.”

Dr. Gaffney is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer health system in the United States.

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

Insulin rationing due to cost in the United States is common even among people with diabetes who have private health insurance, new data show.

The findings from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) suggest that about one in six people with insulin-treated diabetes in the United States practice insulin rationing – skipping doses, taking less insulin than needed, or delaying the purchase of insulin – because of the price.

Not surprisingly, those without insurance had the highest rationing rate, at nearly a third. However, those with private insurance also had higher rates, at nearly one in five, than those of the overall diabetes population. And those with public insurance – Medicare and Medicaid – had lower rates.

The finding regarding privately insured individuals was “somewhat surprising,” lead author Adam Gaffney, MD, told this news organization. But he noted that the finding likely reflects issues such as copays and deductibles, along with other barriers patients experience within the private health insurance system.

The authors pointed out that the $35 copay cap on insulin included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 might improve insulin access for Medicare beneficiaries but a similar cap for privately insured people was removed from the bill. Moreover, copay caps don’t help people who are uninsured.

And, although some states have also passed insulin copay caps that apply to privately insured people, “even a monthly cost of $35 can be a lot of money for people with low incomes. That isn’t negligible. It’s important to keep that in mind,” said Dr. Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance.

“Insulin rationing is frequently harmful and sometimes deadly. In the ICU, I have cared for patients who have life-threatening complications of diabetes because they couldn’t afford this life-saving drug. Universal access to insulin, without cost barriers, is urgently needed,” Dr. Gaffney said in a Public Citizen statement.

Senior author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, agrees. “Drug companies have ramped up prices on insulin year after year, even for products that remain completely unchanged,” she noted.

“Drug firms are making vast profits at the expense of the health, and even the lives, of patients,” noted Dr. Woolhandler, a distinguished professor at Hunter College, City University of New York, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard, and a research associate at Public Citizen.
 

Uninsured, privately insured, and younger people more likely to ration

Dr. Gaffney and colleagues’ findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is the first to examine insulin rationing across the United States among people with all diabetes types treated with insulin using the nationally representative NHIS data.

The results are consistent with those of previous studies, which have found similar rates of insulin rationing at a single U.S. institution and internationally among just those with type 1 diabetes, Dr. Gaffney noted.

In 2021, questions about insulin rationing were added to the NHIS for the first time.

The sample included 982 insulin users with diabetes, representing about 1.4 million U.S. adults with type 1 diabetes, 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes, and 0.4 million with other/unknown types.

Overall, 16.5% of participants – 1.3 million nationwide – reported skipping or reducing insulin doses or delaying the purchase of it in the past year. Delaying purchase was the most common type of rationing, reported by 14.2%, while taking less than needed was the most common practice among those with type 1 diabetes (16.5%).

Age made a difference, with 11.2% of adults aged 65 or older versus 20.4% of younger people reporting rationing. And by income level, even among those at the top level examined – 400% or higher of the federal poverty line – 10.8% reported rationing.

“The high-income group is not necessarily rich. Many would be considered middle-income,” Dr. Gaffney pointed out.  

By race, 23.2% of Black participants reported rationing compared with 16.0% of White and Hispanic individuals.

People without insurance had the highest rationing rate (29.2%), followed by those with private insurance (18.8%), other coverage (16.1%), Medicare (13.5%), and Medicaid (11.6%).
 

‘It’s a complicated system’

Dr. Gaffney noted that even when the patient has private insurance, it’s challenging for the clinician to know in advance whether there are formulary restrictions on what type of insulin can be prescribed or what the patient’s copay or deductible will be.

“Often the prescription gets written without clear knowledge of coverage beforehand ... Coverage differs from patient to patient, from insurance to insurance. It’s a complicated system.”

He added, though, that some electronic health records (EHRs) incorporate this information. “Currently, some EHRs give real-time feedback. I see no reason why, for all the money we plug into these EHRs, there couldn’t be real-time feedback for every patient so you know what the copay is and whether it’s covered at the time you’re prescribing it. To me that’s a very straightforward technological fix that we could achieve. We have the information, but it’s hard to act on it.”

But beyond the EHR, “there are also problems when the patient’s insurance changes or their network changes, and what insulin is covered changes. And they don’t necessarily get that new prescription in time. And suddenly they have a gap. Gaps can be dangerous.”  

What’s more, Dr. Gaffney noted: “The study raises concerning questions about what happens when the public health emergency ends and millions of people with Medicaid lose their coverage. Where are they going to get insulin? That’s another population we have to be worried about.”

All of this puts clinicians in a difficult spot, he said.

“They want the best for their patients but they’re working in a system that’s not letting them focus on practicing medicine and instead is forcing them to think about these economic issues that are in large part out of their control.”

Dr. Gaffney is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer health system in the United States.

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

Insulin rationing due to cost in the United States is common even among people with diabetes who have private health insurance, new data show.

The findings from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) suggest that about one in six people with insulin-treated diabetes in the United States practice insulin rationing – skipping doses, taking less insulin than needed, or delaying the purchase of insulin – because of the price.

Not surprisingly, those without insurance had the highest rationing rate, at nearly a third. However, those with private insurance also had higher rates, at nearly one in five, than those of the overall diabetes population. And those with public insurance – Medicare and Medicaid – had lower rates.

The finding regarding privately insured individuals was “somewhat surprising,” lead author Adam Gaffney, MD, told this news organization. But he noted that the finding likely reflects issues such as copays and deductibles, along with other barriers patients experience within the private health insurance system.

The authors pointed out that the $35 copay cap on insulin included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 might improve insulin access for Medicare beneficiaries but a similar cap for privately insured people was removed from the bill. Moreover, copay caps don’t help people who are uninsured.

And, although some states have also passed insulin copay caps that apply to privately insured people, “even a monthly cost of $35 can be a lot of money for people with low incomes. That isn’t negligible. It’s important to keep that in mind,” said Dr. Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance.

“Insulin rationing is frequently harmful and sometimes deadly. In the ICU, I have cared for patients who have life-threatening complications of diabetes because they couldn’t afford this life-saving drug. Universal access to insulin, without cost barriers, is urgently needed,” Dr. Gaffney said in a Public Citizen statement.

Senior author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, agrees. “Drug companies have ramped up prices on insulin year after year, even for products that remain completely unchanged,” she noted.

“Drug firms are making vast profits at the expense of the health, and even the lives, of patients,” noted Dr. Woolhandler, a distinguished professor at Hunter College, City University of New York, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard, and a research associate at Public Citizen.
 

Uninsured, privately insured, and younger people more likely to ration

Dr. Gaffney and colleagues’ findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is the first to examine insulin rationing across the United States among people with all diabetes types treated with insulin using the nationally representative NHIS data.

The results are consistent with those of previous studies, which have found similar rates of insulin rationing at a single U.S. institution and internationally among just those with type 1 diabetes, Dr. Gaffney noted.

In 2021, questions about insulin rationing were added to the NHIS for the first time.

The sample included 982 insulin users with diabetes, representing about 1.4 million U.S. adults with type 1 diabetes, 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes, and 0.4 million with other/unknown types.

Overall, 16.5% of participants – 1.3 million nationwide – reported skipping or reducing insulin doses or delaying the purchase of it in the past year. Delaying purchase was the most common type of rationing, reported by 14.2%, while taking less than needed was the most common practice among those with type 1 diabetes (16.5%).

Age made a difference, with 11.2% of adults aged 65 or older versus 20.4% of younger people reporting rationing. And by income level, even among those at the top level examined – 400% or higher of the federal poverty line – 10.8% reported rationing.

“The high-income group is not necessarily rich. Many would be considered middle-income,” Dr. Gaffney pointed out.  

By race, 23.2% of Black participants reported rationing compared with 16.0% of White and Hispanic individuals.

People without insurance had the highest rationing rate (29.2%), followed by those with private insurance (18.8%), other coverage (16.1%), Medicare (13.5%), and Medicaid (11.6%).
 

‘It’s a complicated system’

Dr. Gaffney noted that even when the patient has private insurance, it’s challenging for the clinician to know in advance whether there are formulary restrictions on what type of insulin can be prescribed or what the patient’s copay or deductible will be.

“Often the prescription gets written without clear knowledge of coverage beforehand ... Coverage differs from patient to patient, from insurance to insurance. It’s a complicated system.”

He added, though, that some electronic health records (EHRs) incorporate this information. “Currently, some EHRs give real-time feedback. I see no reason why, for all the money we plug into these EHRs, there couldn’t be real-time feedback for every patient so you know what the copay is and whether it’s covered at the time you’re prescribing it. To me that’s a very straightforward technological fix that we could achieve. We have the information, but it’s hard to act on it.”

But beyond the EHR, “there are also problems when the patient’s insurance changes or their network changes, and what insulin is covered changes. And they don’t necessarily get that new prescription in time. And suddenly they have a gap. Gaps can be dangerous.”  

What’s more, Dr. Gaffney noted: “The study raises concerning questions about what happens when the public health emergency ends and millions of people with Medicaid lose their coverage. Where are they going to get insulin? That’s another population we have to be worried about.”

All of this puts clinicians in a difficult spot, he said.

“They want the best for their patients but they’re working in a system that’s not letting them focus on practicing medicine and instead is forcing them to think about these economic issues that are in large part out of their control.”

Dr. Gaffney is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer health system in the United States.

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

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

“How did we miss out on that?” “What?” my physician friend replied as we stood in line at the coffee cart. “Root cause. I mean, we invented this idea and now all these naturopaths and functional medicine quacks are gettin’ rich off it.” “Take it easy,” he says. “Just order a coffee.”

It’s hard not to be indignant. I had a morning clinic with three patients insisting I find the “root cause” of their problem. Now, if one had flagellate dermatitis after eating Asian mushroom soup, I’d have said “Root cause? Shiitake mushrooms!” and walked out like Costanza in Seinfeld, “All right, that’s it for me! Be good everybody!”

Alas no. They had perioral dermatitis, alopecia areata, eczema – no satisfying “roots” for walk-off answers.

There is a universal desire to find the proximal cause for problems. Patients often want to know it so that we address the root of their trouble and not just cut off the branches. This is deeply gratifying for those who want not only to know why, but also to have agency in how to control their disease. For example, if they believe the root cause of perioral dermatitis was excess yeast, then eating a “candida diet’’ should do the trick! Food sensitivities, hormones, and heavy metals round out the top suspects that root cause patients want to talk about.

Of course, patients have been asking about this for a long time, but lately, the root cause visit seems to be on trend. Check out any hip primary care start-up such as One Medical or any hot direct-to-consumer virtual offering such as ParsleyHealth and you will see root-cause everywhere. Our patients are expecting us to address it, or it seems they will find someone cooler who will.

Yet, it wasn’t the slick marketing team at ParsleyHeath who invented the “root cause doctor visit.” We did. It’s an idea that started with our Greek physician ancestors. Breaking from the diviners and priests, we were the first “naturalists” positing that there was a natural, not a divine cause for illness. The cardinal concept in the Hippocratic Corpus was that health was an equilibrium and illness an imbalance. They didn’t have dehydroepiandrosterone tests or mercury levels, but did have bodily fluids. Yellow bile, black bile, blood, and phlegm, were the root of all root causes. A physician simply had to identify which was in excess or deficient and fix that to cure the disease. Interestingly, the word “diagnosis” appears only once in the Corpus. The word “Diagignoskein” appears occasionally but this describes studying thoroughly, not naming a diagnosis as we understand it.

Advances in chemistry in the 17th century meant physicians could add new theories, and new root causes. Now alkaline or other chemical elixirs were added to cure at the source. Since there was no verifiable evidence to prove causes, theories were adopted to provide some rational direction to treatment. In the 18th century, physicians such as Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the original faculty at the University of Pennsylvania school of medicine, taught that spasms of the arteries were the root cause of illnesses. “Heroic” treatments such as extreme bloodletting were the cure. (Note, those patients who survived us kept coming back to us for more).

Scientific knowledge and diagnostic technologies led to more and more complex and abstruse causes. Yet, as we became more precise and effective, our explanations became less satisfying to our patients. I can diagnose and readily treat perioral dermatitis, yet I’m hard pressed to give an answer to its root cause. “Root cause? Yes. Just apply this pimecrolimus cream for a couple of weeks and it’ll be better! All right, that’s it for me! Be good everybody!”

You’ll have to do better, George.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

“How did we miss out on that?” “What?” my physician friend replied as we stood in line at the coffee cart. “Root cause. I mean, we invented this idea and now all these naturopaths and functional medicine quacks are gettin’ rich off it.” “Take it easy,” he says. “Just order a coffee.”

It’s hard not to be indignant. I had a morning clinic with three patients insisting I find the “root cause” of their problem. Now, if one had flagellate dermatitis after eating Asian mushroom soup, I’d have said “Root cause? Shiitake mushrooms!” and walked out like Costanza in Seinfeld, “All right, that’s it for me! Be good everybody!”

Alas no. They had perioral dermatitis, alopecia areata, eczema – no satisfying “roots” for walk-off answers.

There is a universal desire to find the proximal cause for problems. Patients often want to know it so that we address the root of their trouble and not just cut off the branches. This is deeply gratifying for those who want not only to know why, but also to have agency in how to control their disease. For example, if they believe the root cause of perioral dermatitis was excess yeast, then eating a “candida diet’’ should do the trick! Food sensitivities, hormones, and heavy metals round out the top suspects that root cause patients want to talk about.

Of course, patients have been asking about this for a long time, but lately, the root cause visit seems to be on trend. Check out any hip primary care start-up such as One Medical or any hot direct-to-consumer virtual offering such as ParsleyHealth and you will see root-cause everywhere. Our patients are expecting us to address it, or it seems they will find someone cooler who will.

Yet, it wasn’t the slick marketing team at ParsleyHeath who invented the “root cause doctor visit.” We did. It’s an idea that started with our Greek physician ancestors. Breaking from the diviners and priests, we were the first “naturalists” positing that there was a natural, not a divine cause for illness. The cardinal concept in the Hippocratic Corpus was that health was an equilibrium and illness an imbalance. They didn’t have dehydroepiandrosterone tests or mercury levels, but did have bodily fluids. Yellow bile, black bile, blood, and phlegm, were the root of all root causes. A physician simply had to identify which was in excess or deficient and fix that to cure the disease. Interestingly, the word “diagnosis” appears only once in the Corpus. The word “Diagignoskein” appears occasionally but this describes studying thoroughly, not naming a diagnosis as we understand it.

Advances in chemistry in the 17th century meant physicians could add new theories, and new root causes. Now alkaline or other chemical elixirs were added to cure at the source. Since there was no verifiable evidence to prove causes, theories were adopted to provide some rational direction to treatment. In the 18th century, physicians such as Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the original faculty at the University of Pennsylvania school of medicine, taught that spasms of the arteries were the root cause of illnesses. “Heroic” treatments such as extreme bloodletting were the cure. (Note, those patients who survived us kept coming back to us for more).

Scientific knowledge and diagnostic technologies led to more and more complex and abstruse causes. Yet, as we became more precise and effective, our explanations became less satisfying to our patients. I can diagnose and readily treat perioral dermatitis, yet I’m hard pressed to give an answer to its root cause. “Root cause? Yes. Just apply this pimecrolimus cream for a couple of weeks and it’ll be better! All right, that’s it for me! Be good everybody!”

You’ll have to do better, George.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

“How did we miss out on that?” “What?” my physician friend replied as we stood in line at the coffee cart. “Root cause. I mean, we invented this idea and now all these naturopaths and functional medicine quacks are gettin’ rich off it.” “Take it easy,” he says. “Just order a coffee.”

It’s hard not to be indignant. I had a morning clinic with three patients insisting I find the “root cause” of their problem. Now, if one had flagellate dermatitis after eating Asian mushroom soup, I’d have said “Root cause? Shiitake mushrooms!” and walked out like Costanza in Seinfeld, “All right, that’s it for me! Be good everybody!”

Alas no. They had perioral dermatitis, alopecia areata, eczema – no satisfying “roots” for walk-off answers.

There is a universal desire to find the proximal cause for problems. Patients often want to know it so that we address the root of their trouble and not just cut off the branches. This is deeply gratifying for those who want not only to know why, but also to have agency in how to control their disease. For example, if they believe the root cause of perioral dermatitis was excess yeast, then eating a “candida diet’’ should do the trick! Food sensitivities, hormones, and heavy metals round out the top suspects that root cause patients want to talk about.

Of course, patients have been asking about this for a long time, but lately, the root cause visit seems to be on trend. Check out any hip primary care start-up such as One Medical or any hot direct-to-consumer virtual offering such as ParsleyHealth and you will see root-cause everywhere. Our patients are expecting us to address it, or it seems they will find someone cooler who will.

Yet, it wasn’t the slick marketing team at ParsleyHeath who invented the “root cause doctor visit.” We did. It’s an idea that started with our Greek physician ancestors. Breaking from the diviners and priests, we were the first “naturalists” positing that there was a natural, not a divine cause for illness. The cardinal concept in the Hippocratic Corpus was that health was an equilibrium and illness an imbalance. They didn’t have dehydroepiandrosterone tests or mercury levels, but did have bodily fluids. Yellow bile, black bile, blood, and phlegm, were the root of all root causes. A physician simply had to identify which was in excess or deficient and fix that to cure the disease. Interestingly, the word “diagnosis” appears only once in the Corpus. The word “Diagignoskein” appears occasionally but this describes studying thoroughly, not naming a diagnosis as we understand it.

Advances in chemistry in the 17th century meant physicians could add new theories, and new root causes. Now alkaline or other chemical elixirs were added to cure at the source. Since there was no verifiable evidence to prove causes, theories were adopted to provide some rational direction to treatment. In the 18th century, physicians such as Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the original faculty at the University of Pennsylvania school of medicine, taught that spasms of the arteries were the root cause of illnesses. “Heroic” treatments such as extreme bloodletting were the cure. (Note, those patients who survived us kept coming back to us for more).

Scientific knowledge and diagnostic technologies led to more and more complex and abstruse causes. Yet, as we became more precise and effective, our explanations became less satisfying to our patients. I can diagnose and readily treat perioral dermatitis, yet I’m hard pressed to give an answer to its root cause. “Root cause? Yes. Just apply this pimecrolimus cream for a couple of weeks and it’ll be better! All right, that’s it for me! Be good everybody!”

You’ll have to do better, George.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.

Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.

“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
 

Early consequences

To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.

Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.

Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).

The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).

Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.

About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.

Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.

The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.

Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.

“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
 

Possible missed cases

As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.

While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.

Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.

Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.

Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.

“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
 

Early consequences

To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.

Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.

Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).

The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).

Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.

About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.

Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.

The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.

Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.

“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
 

Possible missed cases

As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.

While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.

Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.

Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.

Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.

“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
 

Early consequences

To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.

Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.

Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).

The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).

Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.

About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.

Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.

The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.

Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.

“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
 

Possible missed cases

As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.

While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.

Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.

Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

The emerging COVID-19 variant BQ.1 and one of its descendants now account for more than 1 in 10 cases in the United States, according to the CDC’s latest data.

Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.

“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.

There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. 

Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.  

“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News. 

Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC. 

But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.

“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.

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

The emerging COVID-19 variant BQ.1 and one of its descendants now account for more than 1 in 10 cases in the United States, according to the CDC’s latest data.

Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.

“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.

There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. 

Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.  

“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News. 

Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC. 

But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.

“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.

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

The emerging COVID-19 variant BQ.1 and one of its descendants now account for more than 1 in 10 cases in the United States, according to the CDC’s latest data.

Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.

“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.

There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. 

Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.  

“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News. 

Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC. 

But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.

“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.

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

Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.

The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m^{2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g}, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.

“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.

The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
 

A new reason to screen for albuminuria

“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.

The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m² in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m² in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.

In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.

The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
 

Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD

In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.

The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”

The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.

The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m^{2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g}, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.

“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.

The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
 

A new reason to screen for albuminuria

“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.

The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m² in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m² in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.

In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.

The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
 

Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD

In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.

The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”

The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.

The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m^{2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g}, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.

“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.

The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
 

A new reason to screen for albuminuria

“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.

The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m² in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m² in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.

In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.

The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
 

Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD

In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.

The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”

The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.