Clinical Endocrinology News

Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.

Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.

Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.

The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).

The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).

Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.

The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
 

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.

Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.

Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.

For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.

Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.

The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.

Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.

Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.

The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).

The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).

Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.

The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
 

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.

Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.

Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.

For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.

Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.

The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.

Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.

Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.

The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).

The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).

Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.

The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
 

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.

Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.

Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.

For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.

Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.

The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

“Papa! Where donut?” asks my 2½ year-old sitting with her legs dangling and hands folded in a bustling Starbucks. We’ve been waiting for 8 minutes and we’ve reached her limit of tolerance. She’s unimpressed by the queued customers who compliment her curly blonde hair, many of whom have come and gone since we’ve been waiting. I agree – how long does it take to pour a kiddie milk and grab a donut? We can both see it in the case right there!

No one likes to wait. Truly, one of the great benefits of the modern world is that wait times are now incredibly short. Many Starbucks customers, unlike my daughter, ordered their drink ahead and waited exactly 0 minutes to get their drink. What about Amazon? I ordered a bird feeder this morning and it’s already hanging in the yard. It’s still daylight. Feel like Himalayan Momo Dumplings tonight? Your food could arrive in 37 minutes. The modern wait standard has been set impossibly high for us.

Yes, medicine is no doubt at the top of the list of “Worst Wait Times.” We make patients wait for appointments (sometimes months), wait to be seen, wait for biopsy results, wait for follow-up surgery, wait for those second results, even wait for PET scans and treatment plans for some. We created a whole room just for waiting. Airlines call theirs “The Platinum Executive Lounge.” Ours is “The waiting room.”

Excess waiting is a significant reason why health care gets beat up in reviews. We’re unable to keep up with the new expectations. Waiting is also a significant cause of distress. Many patients report the most difficult part of their cancer diagnosis was the waiting for results, not the treatment. It’s because when under stress, we are hardwired to take action. Binding patients into inaction while they wait is very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, the psychology of waiting is well understood and there are best practices that can help. First, anxiety makes waiting much worse. Conveying confidence and reassuring patients they are in the right place and that everything will be OK makes the wait time feel shorter for them. Uncertainty also compounds their apprehension. If you believe the diagnosis will be melanoma, tell them that at the time of the biopsy and tell them what you expect next. This is better than saying, “Well, that could be cancer. We’ll see.”

Knowing a wait time is also much better than not. Have your staff advise patients on how much longer they can expect before seeing you (telling them they’re next isn’t as effective). Advise that test results should be back by the end of next week. Of course, under promise and over deliver. When the results are back on Tuesday, you’ve got a pleased patient.

Explaining that you had to add in an urgent patient helps. Even if it’s not your fault, it’s still better to apologize. For example, the 78 highway, the left anterior descending artery to our office, has been closed because of a sinkhole this month (not kidding). I’ve been apologizing to a lot of patients saying that all our patients are arriving late, which is putting us behind. As they can envision the linear parking lot that used to be a highway, it helps.

Lastly, as any child can tell you, waiting has to not only be, but to also appear, fair. The only thing worse than waiting for an appointment, or donut, is seeing someone who came in after you get their donut before you do. If you’re pulling both Mohs and cosmetics patients from the same waiting area, then your surgery patients will see a lot of patients come and go while they are sitting. Demarcating one sitting area for Mohs and one for clinics might help. So does ordering ahead. I’d show my daughter how to use the app so we don’t have to wait so long next week, but she’s 2 and I’m quite sure she already knows.

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].

“Papa! Where donut?” asks my 2½ year-old sitting with her legs dangling and hands folded in a bustling Starbucks. We’ve been waiting for 8 minutes and we’ve reached her limit of tolerance. She’s unimpressed by the queued customers who compliment her curly blonde hair, many of whom have come and gone since we’ve been waiting. I agree – how long does it take to pour a kiddie milk and grab a donut? We can both see it in the case right there!

No one likes to wait. Truly, one of the great benefits of the modern world is that wait times are now incredibly short. Many Starbucks customers, unlike my daughter, ordered their drink ahead and waited exactly 0 minutes to get their drink. What about Amazon? I ordered a bird feeder this morning and it’s already hanging in the yard. It’s still daylight. Feel like Himalayan Momo Dumplings tonight? Your food could arrive in 37 minutes. The modern wait standard has been set impossibly high for us.

Yes, medicine is no doubt at the top of the list of “Worst Wait Times.” We make patients wait for appointments (sometimes months), wait to be seen, wait for biopsy results, wait for follow-up surgery, wait for those second results, even wait for PET scans and treatment plans for some. We created a whole room just for waiting. Airlines call theirs “The Platinum Executive Lounge.” Ours is “The waiting room.”

Excess waiting is a significant reason why health care gets beat up in reviews. We’re unable to keep up with the new expectations. Waiting is also a significant cause of distress. Many patients report the most difficult part of their cancer diagnosis was the waiting for results, not the treatment. It’s because when under stress, we are hardwired to take action. Binding patients into inaction while they wait is very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, the psychology of waiting is well understood and there are best practices that can help. First, anxiety makes waiting much worse. Conveying confidence and reassuring patients they are in the right place and that everything will be OK makes the wait time feel shorter for them. Uncertainty also compounds their apprehension. If you believe the diagnosis will be melanoma, tell them that at the time of the biopsy and tell them what you expect next. This is better than saying, “Well, that could be cancer. We’ll see.”

Knowing a wait time is also much better than not. Have your staff advise patients on how much longer they can expect before seeing you (telling them they’re next isn’t as effective). Advise that test results should be back by the end of next week. Of course, under promise and over deliver. When the results are back on Tuesday, you’ve got a pleased patient.

Explaining that you had to add in an urgent patient helps. Even if it’s not your fault, it’s still better to apologize. For example, the 78 highway, the left anterior descending artery to our office, has been closed because of a sinkhole this month (not kidding). I’ve been apologizing to a lot of patients saying that all our patients are arriving late, which is putting us behind. As they can envision the linear parking lot that used to be a highway, it helps.

Lastly, as any child can tell you, waiting has to not only be, but to also appear, fair. The only thing worse than waiting for an appointment, or donut, is seeing someone who came in after you get their donut before you do. If you’re pulling both Mohs and cosmetics patients from the same waiting area, then your surgery patients will see a lot of patients come and go while they are sitting. Demarcating one sitting area for Mohs and one for clinics might help. So does ordering ahead. I’d show my daughter how to use the app so we don’t have to wait so long next week, but she’s 2 and I’m quite sure she already knows.

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].

“Papa! Where donut?” asks my 2½ year-old sitting with her legs dangling and hands folded in a bustling Starbucks. We’ve been waiting for 8 minutes and we’ve reached her limit of tolerance. She’s unimpressed by the queued customers who compliment her curly blonde hair, many of whom have come and gone since we’ve been waiting. I agree – how long does it take to pour a kiddie milk and grab a donut? We can both see it in the case right there!

No one likes to wait. Truly, one of the great benefits of the modern world is that wait times are now incredibly short. Many Starbucks customers, unlike my daughter, ordered their drink ahead and waited exactly 0 minutes to get their drink. What about Amazon? I ordered a bird feeder this morning and it’s already hanging in the yard. It’s still daylight. Feel like Himalayan Momo Dumplings tonight? Your food could arrive in 37 minutes. The modern wait standard has been set impossibly high for us.

Yes, medicine is no doubt at the top of the list of “Worst Wait Times.” We make patients wait for appointments (sometimes months), wait to be seen, wait for biopsy results, wait for follow-up surgery, wait for those second results, even wait for PET scans and treatment plans for some. We created a whole room just for waiting. Airlines call theirs “The Platinum Executive Lounge.” Ours is “The waiting room.”

Excess waiting is a significant reason why health care gets beat up in reviews. We’re unable to keep up with the new expectations. Waiting is also a significant cause of distress. Many patients report the most difficult part of their cancer diagnosis was the waiting for results, not the treatment. It’s because when under stress, we are hardwired to take action. Binding patients into inaction while they wait is very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, the psychology of waiting is well understood and there are best practices that can help. First, anxiety makes waiting much worse. Conveying confidence and reassuring patients they are in the right place and that everything will be OK makes the wait time feel shorter for them. Uncertainty also compounds their apprehension. If you believe the diagnosis will be melanoma, tell them that at the time of the biopsy and tell them what you expect next. This is better than saying, “Well, that could be cancer. We’ll see.”

Knowing a wait time is also much better than not. Have your staff advise patients on how much longer they can expect before seeing you (telling them they’re next isn’t as effective). Advise that test results should be back by the end of next week. Of course, under promise and over deliver. When the results are back on Tuesday, you’ve got a pleased patient.

Explaining that you had to add in an urgent patient helps. Even if it’s not your fault, it’s still better to apologize. For example, the 78 highway, the left anterior descending artery to our office, has been closed because of a sinkhole this month (not kidding). I’ve been apologizing to a lot of patients saying that all our patients are arriving late, which is putting us behind. As they can envision the linear parking lot that used to be a highway, it helps.

Lastly, as any child can tell you, waiting has to not only be, but to also appear, fair. The only thing worse than waiting for an appointment, or donut, is seeing someone who came in after you get their donut before you do. If you’re pulling both Mohs and cosmetics patients from the same waiting area, then your surgery patients will see a lot of patients come and go while they are sitting. Demarcating one sitting area for Mohs and one for clinics might help. So does ordering ahead. I’d show my daughter how to use the app so we don’t have to wait so long next week, but she’s 2 and I’m quite sure she already knows.

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].

Medicare is now covering continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for all beneficiaries with diabetes who use insulin, as well as those with a “history of problematic hypoglycemia.”

The new policy decision, announced earlier this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, means that coverage is expanded to those who take even just a single dose of basal insulin daily or who don’t take insulin but who for other reasons experience “problematic” hypoglycemia, defined as a history of more than one level 2 event (glucose < 54 mg/dL) or at least one level 3 event (< 54 mg/dL requiring assistance).

Previously, coverage was limited to those taking frequent daily insulin doses.  

The additional number of people covered, most with type 2 diabetes, is estimated to be at least 1.5 million. That number could more than double if private insurers follow suit, reported an industry analyst.

Chuck Henderson, chief executive officer of the American Diabetes Association, said in a statement: “We applaud CMS’ decision allowing for all insulin-dependent people as well as others who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia to have access to a continuous glucose monitor, a potentially life-saving tool for diabetes management.”

According to Dexcom, which manufacturers the G6 and the recently approved G7 CGMs, the decision was based in part on their MOBILE study. The trial demonstrated the benefit of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes who use only basal insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemic events.

On April 14, Abbott, which manufactures the Freestyle Libre 2 and the recently approved Libre 3, received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the Libre 3’s stand-alone reader device. Previously, the Libre 3 had been approved for use only with a smartphone app. The small handheld reader is considered durable medical equipment, making it eligible for Medicare coverage. Abbott is “working on having the FreeStyle Libre 3 system available to Medicare beneficiaries,” the company said in a statement.

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

Medicare is now covering continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for all beneficiaries with diabetes who use insulin, as well as those with a “history of problematic hypoglycemia.”

The new policy decision, announced earlier this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, means that coverage is expanded to those who take even just a single dose of basal insulin daily or who don’t take insulin but who for other reasons experience “problematic” hypoglycemia, defined as a history of more than one level 2 event (glucose < 54 mg/dL) or at least one level 3 event (< 54 mg/dL requiring assistance).

Previously, coverage was limited to those taking frequent daily insulin doses.  

The additional number of people covered, most with type 2 diabetes, is estimated to be at least 1.5 million. That number could more than double if private insurers follow suit, reported an industry analyst.

Chuck Henderson, chief executive officer of the American Diabetes Association, said in a statement: “We applaud CMS’ decision allowing for all insulin-dependent people as well as others who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia to have access to a continuous glucose monitor, a potentially life-saving tool for diabetes management.”

According to Dexcom, which manufacturers the G6 and the recently approved G7 CGMs, the decision was based in part on their MOBILE study. The trial demonstrated the benefit of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes who use only basal insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemic events.

On April 14, Abbott, which manufactures the Freestyle Libre 2 and the recently approved Libre 3, received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the Libre 3’s stand-alone reader device. Previously, the Libre 3 had been approved for use only with a smartphone app. The small handheld reader is considered durable medical equipment, making it eligible for Medicare coverage. Abbott is “working on having the FreeStyle Libre 3 system available to Medicare beneficiaries,” the company said in a statement.

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

Medicare is now covering continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for all beneficiaries with diabetes who use insulin, as well as those with a “history of problematic hypoglycemia.”

The new policy decision, announced earlier this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, means that coverage is expanded to those who take even just a single dose of basal insulin daily or who don’t take insulin but who for other reasons experience “problematic” hypoglycemia, defined as a history of more than one level 2 event (glucose < 54 mg/dL) or at least one level 3 event (< 54 mg/dL requiring assistance).

Previously, coverage was limited to those taking frequent daily insulin doses.  

The additional number of people covered, most with type 2 diabetes, is estimated to be at least 1.5 million. That number could more than double if private insurers follow suit, reported an industry analyst.

Chuck Henderson, chief executive officer of the American Diabetes Association, said in a statement: “We applaud CMS’ decision allowing for all insulin-dependent people as well as others who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia to have access to a continuous glucose monitor, a potentially life-saving tool for diabetes management.”

According to Dexcom, which manufacturers the G6 and the recently approved G7 CGMs, the decision was based in part on their MOBILE study. The trial demonstrated the benefit of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes who use only basal insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemic events.

On April 14, Abbott, which manufactures the Freestyle Libre 2 and the recently approved Libre 3, received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the Libre 3’s stand-alone reader device. Previously, the Libre 3 had been approved for use only with a smartphone app. The small handheld reader is considered durable medical equipment, making it eligible for Medicare coverage. Abbott is “working on having the FreeStyle Libre 3 system available to Medicare beneficiaries,” the company said in a statement.

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

Individuals at increased risk of type 2 diabetes may be able to reduce their risk via a novel intervention combining intermittent fasting (IF) with early time-restricted eating, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.

The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.

The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.

However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.

“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.

This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.

“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
 

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.

“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”

Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.

She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.

“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.

Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”

“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
 

A novel way to cut calories?

The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.

Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.

To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

• IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
• Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
• Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.

There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.

A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m².

In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.

The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).

“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.

IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.

Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).

Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.

IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
 

Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue

When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.

In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.

At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.

Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.

The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

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

Individuals at increased risk of type 2 diabetes may be able to reduce their risk via a novel intervention combining intermittent fasting (IF) with early time-restricted eating, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.

The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.

The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.

However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.

“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.

This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.

“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
 

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.

“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”

Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.

She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.

“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.

Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”

“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
 

A novel way to cut calories?

The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.

Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.

To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

• IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
• Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
• Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.

There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.

A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m².

In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.

The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).

“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.

IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.

Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).

Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.

IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
 

Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue

When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.

In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.

At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.

Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.

The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

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

Individuals at increased risk of type 2 diabetes may be able to reduce their risk via a novel intervention combining intermittent fasting (IF) with early time-restricted eating, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.

The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.

The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.

However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.

“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.

This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.

“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
 

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.

“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”

Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.

She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.

“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.

Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”

“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
 

A novel way to cut calories?

The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.

Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.

To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

• IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
• Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
• Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.

There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.

A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m².

In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.

The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).

“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.

IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.

Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).

Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.

IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
 

Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue

When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.

In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.

At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.

Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.

The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Rates of suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide among endocrinologists declined from 2022 and now rank similar to the average rate among physicians overall, but these rates are still higher than the general public, according to survey findings.

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

The current report about suicide among endocrinologists, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Endocrinologist Suicide Report 2023,” was recently published.

A report about suicide among physicians overall, based on the same survey, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023,” was published previously.
 

Improved rates among 28 medical specialties

In the 2022 survey of a representative national sample of 13,069 U.S. physicians, 10% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, ranking the specialty sixth among 29 medical specialties that year.

The 2023 survey found that in a representative national sample of 9,175 U.S. physicians, 8% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, roughly the average rate among clinicians overall, ranking it 20th among 29 medical specialties.

The highest rates of thoughts of suicide in the latest survey were reported by physicians in otolaryngology (13%), followed by physicians in psychiatry, family medicine, anesthesiology, obstetrics/gynecology, and emergency medicine (roughly 12% in each specialty).

The rate of attempted suicide was 1% among endocrinologists, which was also the rate among physicians overall.

More female than male endocrinologists reported contemplating suicide (8% versus 5%). In addition, 1% of male endocrinologists reported that they had attempted suicide and 2% of female endocrinologists replied they preferred not to answer the question about attempted suicide.

In contrast, in 2020, an estimated 4.9% of U.S. adults aged 18 and older had serious thoughts about suicide and 0.5% attempted suicide, according to the National Institutes of Health website, the latest report states.

Rates of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among physicians overall “are worryingly high numbers,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, emeritus professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, Health, and chief executive officer, Asynchealth, said in the report.
 

Confiding in others, good mental health habits, resources

In the 2023 survey, half of the endocrinologists who had thought about suicide had confided in a therapist and 41% had spoken to a family member, but none had told a colleague or a friend, or phoned a suicide hotline.

On the other hand, 7% of male and 10% of female endocrinologists, and 9% of male and 11% of female physicians overall, reported that a colleague had shared suicidal thoughts with them.

“It’s pleasing that physicians overall have shown themselves slightly more likely to bring ideas about suicide to a therapist and less likely to keep their distress entirely to themselves,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

“It’s possible that the need for health care is becoming less stigmatized nationally, with large and increasing emphasis on physician well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” he suggested.

Endocrinologists reported that to keep happy and have good mental health, they engaged in activities and hobbies (70%), exercised (66%), spent time with family and friends (63%), got enough sleep (56%), ate healthy (48%), went to therapy (11%), or did other things (8%), which was similar to that reported by physicians overall.

The report lists several resources that are specific for physicians having suicidal thoughts (Physician Support Line, 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Peer RxMed, International Association for Suicide Prevention, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention) along with contact information.

The 2023 survey was conducted from June 28, 2022, to Oct. 3, 2022, and the 2022 survey was conducted from June 29, 2021, to Sept. 26, 2021.

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

Rates of suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide among endocrinologists declined from 2022 and now rank similar to the average rate among physicians overall, but these rates are still higher than the general public, according to survey findings.

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

The current report about suicide among endocrinologists, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Endocrinologist Suicide Report 2023,” was recently published.

A report about suicide among physicians overall, based on the same survey, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023,” was published previously.
 

Improved rates among 28 medical specialties

In the 2022 survey of a representative national sample of 13,069 U.S. physicians, 10% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, ranking the specialty sixth among 29 medical specialties that year.

The 2023 survey found that in a representative national sample of 9,175 U.S. physicians, 8% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, roughly the average rate among clinicians overall, ranking it 20th among 29 medical specialties.

The highest rates of thoughts of suicide in the latest survey were reported by physicians in otolaryngology (13%), followed by physicians in psychiatry, family medicine, anesthesiology, obstetrics/gynecology, and emergency medicine (roughly 12% in each specialty).

The rate of attempted suicide was 1% among endocrinologists, which was also the rate among physicians overall.

More female than male endocrinologists reported contemplating suicide (8% versus 5%). In addition, 1% of male endocrinologists reported that they had attempted suicide and 2% of female endocrinologists replied they preferred not to answer the question about attempted suicide.

In contrast, in 2020, an estimated 4.9% of U.S. adults aged 18 and older had serious thoughts about suicide and 0.5% attempted suicide, according to the National Institutes of Health website, the latest report states.

Rates of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among physicians overall “are worryingly high numbers,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, emeritus professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, Health, and chief executive officer, Asynchealth, said in the report.
 

Confiding in others, good mental health habits, resources

In the 2023 survey, half of the endocrinologists who had thought about suicide had confided in a therapist and 41% had spoken to a family member, but none had told a colleague or a friend, or phoned a suicide hotline.

On the other hand, 7% of male and 10% of female endocrinologists, and 9% of male and 11% of female physicians overall, reported that a colleague had shared suicidal thoughts with them.

“It’s pleasing that physicians overall have shown themselves slightly more likely to bring ideas about suicide to a therapist and less likely to keep their distress entirely to themselves,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

“It’s possible that the need for health care is becoming less stigmatized nationally, with large and increasing emphasis on physician well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” he suggested.

Endocrinologists reported that to keep happy and have good mental health, they engaged in activities and hobbies (70%), exercised (66%), spent time with family and friends (63%), got enough sleep (56%), ate healthy (48%), went to therapy (11%), or did other things (8%), which was similar to that reported by physicians overall.

The report lists several resources that are specific for physicians having suicidal thoughts (Physician Support Line, 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Peer RxMed, International Association for Suicide Prevention, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention) along with contact information.

The 2023 survey was conducted from June 28, 2022, to Oct. 3, 2022, and the 2022 survey was conducted from June 29, 2021, to Sept. 26, 2021.

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

Rates of suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide among endocrinologists declined from 2022 and now rank similar to the average rate among physicians overall, but these rates are still higher than the general public, according to survey findings.

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

The current report about suicide among endocrinologists, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Endocrinologist Suicide Report 2023,” was recently published.

A report about suicide among physicians overall, based on the same survey, titled, “Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023,” was published previously.
 

Improved rates among 28 medical specialties

In the 2022 survey of a representative national sample of 13,069 U.S. physicians, 10% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, ranking the specialty sixth among 29 medical specialties that year.

The 2023 survey found that in a representative national sample of 9,175 U.S. physicians, 8% of endocrinologists reported having suicidal thoughts, roughly the average rate among clinicians overall, ranking it 20th among 29 medical specialties.

The highest rates of thoughts of suicide in the latest survey were reported by physicians in otolaryngology (13%), followed by physicians in psychiatry, family medicine, anesthesiology, obstetrics/gynecology, and emergency medicine (roughly 12% in each specialty).

The rate of attempted suicide was 1% among endocrinologists, which was also the rate among physicians overall.

More female than male endocrinologists reported contemplating suicide (8% versus 5%). In addition, 1% of male endocrinologists reported that they had attempted suicide and 2% of female endocrinologists replied they preferred not to answer the question about attempted suicide.

In contrast, in 2020, an estimated 4.9% of U.S. adults aged 18 and older had serious thoughts about suicide and 0.5% attempted suicide, according to the National Institutes of Health website, the latest report states.

Rates of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among physicians overall “are worryingly high numbers,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, emeritus professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, Health, and chief executive officer, Asynchealth, said in the report.
 

Confiding in others, good mental health habits, resources

In the 2023 survey, half of the endocrinologists who had thought about suicide had confided in a therapist and 41% had spoken to a family member, but none had told a colleague or a friend, or phoned a suicide hotline.

On the other hand, 7% of male and 10% of female endocrinologists, and 9% of male and 11% of female physicians overall, reported that a colleague had shared suicidal thoughts with them.

“It’s pleasing that physicians overall have shown themselves slightly more likely to bring ideas about suicide to a therapist and less likely to keep their distress entirely to themselves,” Dr. Yellowlees said.

“It’s possible that the need for health care is becoming less stigmatized nationally, with large and increasing emphasis on physician well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” he suggested.

Endocrinologists reported that to keep happy and have good mental health, they engaged in activities and hobbies (70%), exercised (66%), spent time with family and friends (63%), got enough sleep (56%), ate healthy (48%), went to therapy (11%), or did other things (8%), which was similar to that reported by physicians overall.

The report lists several resources that are specific for physicians having suicidal thoughts (Physician Support Line, 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Peer RxMed, International Association for Suicide Prevention, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention) along with contact information.

The 2023 survey was conducted from June 28, 2022, to Oct. 3, 2022, and the 2022 survey was conducted from June 29, 2021, to Sept. 26, 2021.

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

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Studies indicate that physical activity improves glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, other data suggest a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality through physical activity.

In the consensus report “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022,” the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, therefore, recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, supplemented with two to three resistance, flexibility, or balance training sessions per week.

But even when such recommendations are integrated into a therapeutic education program, adherence is often transient or partial.

In this context, Michael Joubert, MD, PhD, and his team at Caen (France) University Hospital wondered about neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), a physical treatment routinely used in functional rehabilitation to improve muscle strength and volume. Could NMES improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, and thus, be an alternative to traditional physical activity?

To answer this question, they conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial called ELECTRODIAB2. The results were presented at the 2023 Congress of the Francophone Diabetes Society.

A few small pilot studies found that NMES improved insulin sensitivity and glycemic control; therefore, it could indeed be an alternative. The metabolic effect of NMES, however, has not been widely studied.

A total of 40 patients were enrolled in ELECTRODIAB2. Of these participants, 35 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 6 weeks without NMES (control, no intervention), electrostimulation on 3 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minute ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES3), and electrostimulation on 5 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minutes ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES5). The goal was to assess the glucose levels of sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes during these periods. At each session, NMES was applied at the maximum-tolerated intensity.

Data from 32 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, and body mass index was 33.0 ± 4.3 kg/m². Duration of diabetes was 8.6 ± 5.9 years. Regarding diabetes treatments, 47%, 31%, 9%, and 13% of the patients were taking 0, 1, 2, and 3 oral hypoglycemic agents or glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, respectively.

No significant differences in glucose levels were observed between the three groups. The primary outcome was mean glucose level based on a 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recording. Those levels were 181.4 ± 42.5 mg/dL (control, no intervention), 180.6 ± 45.8 mg/dL (NMES3), and 181.1 ± 48.9 mg/dL (NMES5).

Furthermore, secondary outcomes (rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia) did not differ between the three groups.

The researchers concluded that, “with regard to the CGM criteria, this crossover randomized controlled trial did not show that the 6-week biquadricipital NMES sessions had any benefit. This finding conflicts with the results of preliminary pilot studies but it does not encourage further research on NMES in this population of patients with early-stage diabetes.”

Therefore, at this point, it does not look like NMES can be recommended as an alternative to physical activity for sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies indicate that physical activity improves glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, other data suggest a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality through physical activity.

In the consensus report “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022,” the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, therefore, recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, supplemented with two to three resistance, flexibility, or balance training sessions per week.

But even when such recommendations are integrated into a therapeutic education program, adherence is often transient or partial.

In this context, Michael Joubert, MD, PhD, and his team at Caen (France) University Hospital wondered about neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), a physical treatment routinely used in functional rehabilitation to improve muscle strength and volume. Could NMES improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, and thus, be an alternative to traditional physical activity?

To answer this question, they conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial called ELECTRODIAB2. The results were presented at the 2023 Congress of the Francophone Diabetes Society.

A few small pilot studies found that NMES improved insulin sensitivity and glycemic control; therefore, it could indeed be an alternative. The metabolic effect of NMES, however, has not been widely studied.

A total of 40 patients were enrolled in ELECTRODIAB2. Of these participants, 35 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 6 weeks without NMES (control, no intervention), electrostimulation on 3 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minute ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES3), and electrostimulation on 5 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minutes ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES5). The goal was to assess the glucose levels of sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes during these periods. At each session, NMES was applied at the maximum-tolerated intensity.

Data from 32 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, and body mass index was 33.0 ± 4.3 kg/m². Duration of diabetes was 8.6 ± 5.9 years. Regarding diabetes treatments, 47%, 31%, 9%, and 13% of the patients were taking 0, 1, 2, and 3 oral hypoglycemic agents or glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, respectively.

No significant differences in glucose levels were observed between the three groups. The primary outcome was mean glucose level based on a 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recording. Those levels were 181.4 ± 42.5 mg/dL (control, no intervention), 180.6 ± 45.8 mg/dL (NMES3), and 181.1 ± 48.9 mg/dL (NMES5).

Furthermore, secondary outcomes (rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia) did not differ between the three groups.

The researchers concluded that, “with regard to the CGM criteria, this crossover randomized controlled trial did not show that the 6-week biquadricipital NMES sessions had any benefit. This finding conflicts with the results of preliminary pilot studies but it does not encourage further research on NMES in this population of patients with early-stage diabetes.”

Therefore, at this point, it does not look like NMES can be recommended as an alternative to physical activity for sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies indicate that physical activity improves glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, other data suggest a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality through physical activity.

In the consensus report “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022,” the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, therefore, recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, supplemented with two to three resistance, flexibility, or balance training sessions per week.

But even when such recommendations are integrated into a therapeutic education program, adherence is often transient or partial.

In this context, Michael Joubert, MD, PhD, and his team at Caen (France) University Hospital wondered about neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), a physical treatment routinely used in functional rehabilitation to improve muscle strength and volume. Could NMES improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, and thus, be an alternative to traditional physical activity?

To answer this question, they conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial called ELECTRODIAB2. The results were presented at the 2023 Congress of the Francophone Diabetes Society.

A few small pilot studies found that NMES improved insulin sensitivity and glycemic control; therefore, it could indeed be an alternative. The metabolic effect of NMES, however, has not been widely studied.

A total of 40 patients were enrolled in ELECTRODIAB2. Of these participants, 35 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 6 weeks without NMES (control, no intervention), electrostimulation on 3 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minute ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES3), and electrostimulation on 5 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minutes ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES5). The goal was to assess the glucose levels of sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes during these periods. At each session, NMES was applied at the maximum-tolerated intensity.

Data from 32 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, and body mass index was 33.0 ± 4.3 kg/m². Duration of diabetes was 8.6 ± 5.9 years. Regarding diabetes treatments, 47%, 31%, 9%, and 13% of the patients were taking 0, 1, 2, and 3 oral hypoglycemic agents or glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, respectively.

No significant differences in glucose levels were observed between the three groups. The primary outcome was mean glucose level based on a 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recording. Those levels were 181.4 ± 42.5 mg/dL (control, no intervention), 180.6 ± 45.8 mg/dL (NMES3), and 181.1 ± 48.9 mg/dL (NMES5).

Furthermore, secondary outcomes (rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia) did not differ between the three groups.

The researchers concluded that, “with regard to the CGM criteria, this crossover randomized controlled trial did not show that the 6-week biquadricipital NMES sessions had any benefit. This finding conflicts with the results of preliminary pilot studies but it does not encourage further research on NMES in this population of patients with early-stage diabetes.”

Therefore, at this point, it does not look like NMES can be recommended as an alternative to physical activity for sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Early parathyroidectomy within 1 year of diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) did not reduce the risk of a sustained decline in kidney function, measured by a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 50%, compared with observation (no surgery) in adults aged 60 and older.

Early parathyroidectomy was, however, associated with a reduced adjusted risk of this decline in kidney function in patients with newly diagnosed PHPT who were younger than age 60.

The findings, based on data from close to 43,000 veterans, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The important takeaway from our study is that for older adults [age 60 or older] with primary hyperparathyroidism, preservation of kidney function should not be a primary consideration when making decisions about whether to undergo parathyroidectomy,” lead author Carolyn D. Seib, MD, told this news organization.

“It is important that physicians also discuss with their patients the potential long-term benefits of parathyroidectomy related to a reduced risk of fractures, kidney stones, and cardiovascular disease, and improved quality of life, in addition to the need for lifelong surveillance if surgery is declined, weighing these against an individual patient’s risk of surgery,” said Dr. Seib, a surgeon at Palo Alto (Calif.) VA Medical Center.

“However, in patients younger than 60, early parathyroidectomy may prevent progression to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and should be more strongly considered,” she noted.

Parathyroidectomy, she observed, is a low-risk outpatient surgery for most adults.

“Potential complications of surgery include temporary or permanent hoarseness, hypoparathyroidism (low postoperative parathyroid function), bleeding requiring return to the operating room, and complications related to general anesthesia, all of which are rare,” said Dr. Seib.

“Surgery by a high-volume surgeon is associated with a reduced risk of complications, so patients should seek out an experienced parathyroid surgeon,” she emphasized.  

Moreover, parathyroidectomy is the only treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism.
 

Does parathyroidectomy slow loss of kidney function?

Multidisciplinary guidelines recommend parathyroidectomy, at least in part to mitigate the risk for, and effects related to, the progression of CKD in patients with PHPT and an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the researchers wrote.

However, whether parathyroidectomy slows the loss of kidney function in adults with PHPT is not clear.

Guidelines also state that “observation for PHPT disease progression can be considered when patients have no obvious end organ damage (i.e., eGFR > 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², normal bone mineral density, and no history of kidney stones or fractures),” Dr. Seib noted.  

To address the evidence gap, the researchers emulated a randomized target trial using observational data.

In this type of study, Dr. Seib explained, “although patients aren’t randomly assigned to a treatment, complex statistical methods are used to adjust for baseline confounders in an attempt to emulate random treatment assignment and account for bias that may affect the timing of when patients receive treatment.”

Using national Veterans Health Administration data, researchers identified 43,697 veterans with a new biochemical diagnosis of PHPT, defined as elevated parathyroid hormone (> 65 ng/mL) within 6 months of an elevated serum calcium level (> 32.55 mmol/L or >10.2 mg/dL), from 2000 to 2019.

Of these patients, 3,804 underwent parathyroidectomy within 1 year of diagnosis of PHPT, and 39,893 did not, and instead, a watchful waiting approach was adopted.

To be included in the analysis, patients had to have an eGFR above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² for 12 months before PHPT diagnosis to exclude secondary or tertiary hyperparathyroidism.

The primary outcome was a sustained decline in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline.

In the overall cohort, patients had a mean pretreatment eGFR of 71.8 mL/min per 1.73 m². The mean age of patients was 67, 88% were men, and 68% were White.

After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 6.7% of the patients had a decline in eGFR of at least 50%.

The cumulative incidence of this decline in eGFR was 5.1% at 5 years and 10.8% at 10 years in patients who had had early parathyroidectomy compared with 5.1% and 12.0%, respectively, in patients who did not undergo surgery.

In the overall population, the risk of at least a 50% decline in eGFR was similar in the early parathyroidectomy group versus the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16).

However, diving deeper showed that parathyroidectomy was associated with a reduced risk of the primary outcome among patients younger than 60 years (adjusted HR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.59-0.93) but not among those aged 60 or older (adjusted HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 0.87-1.34).

“When participating in shared decision-making for older adults [age 60 and older] with PHPT, clinicians should not consider parathyroidectomy for potential benefits of preservation of kidney function,” the researchers reiterated.

“For younger patients, clinicians should discuss the potential benefit of parathyroidectomy to reduce the risk for CKD and associated complications in adults with PHPT,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early parathyroidectomy within 1 year of diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) did not reduce the risk of a sustained decline in kidney function, measured by a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 50%, compared with observation (no surgery) in adults aged 60 and older.

Early parathyroidectomy was, however, associated with a reduced adjusted risk of this decline in kidney function in patients with newly diagnosed PHPT who were younger than age 60.

The findings, based on data from close to 43,000 veterans, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The important takeaway from our study is that for older adults [age 60 or older] with primary hyperparathyroidism, preservation of kidney function should not be a primary consideration when making decisions about whether to undergo parathyroidectomy,” lead author Carolyn D. Seib, MD, told this news organization.

“It is important that physicians also discuss with their patients the potential long-term benefits of parathyroidectomy related to a reduced risk of fractures, kidney stones, and cardiovascular disease, and improved quality of life, in addition to the need for lifelong surveillance if surgery is declined, weighing these against an individual patient’s risk of surgery,” said Dr. Seib, a surgeon at Palo Alto (Calif.) VA Medical Center.

“However, in patients younger than 60, early parathyroidectomy may prevent progression to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and should be more strongly considered,” she noted.

Parathyroidectomy, she observed, is a low-risk outpatient surgery for most adults.

“Potential complications of surgery include temporary or permanent hoarseness, hypoparathyroidism (low postoperative parathyroid function), bleeding requiring return to the operating room, and complications related to general anesthesia, all of which are rare,” said Dr. Seib.

“Surgery by a high-volume surgeon is associated with a reduced risk of complications, so patients should seek out an experienced parathyroid surgeon,” she emphasized.  

Moreover, parathyroidectomy is the only treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism.
 

Does parathyroidectomy slow loss of kidney function?

Multidisciplinary guidelines recommend parathyroidectomy, at least in part to mitigate the risk for, and effects related to, the progression of CKD in patients with PHPT and an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the researchers wrote.

However, whether parathyroidectomy slows the loss of kidney function in adults with PHPT is not clear.

Guidelines also state that “observation for PHPT disease progression can be considered when patients have no obvious end organ damage (i.e., eGFR > 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², normal bone mineral density, and no history of kidney stones or fractures),” Dr. Seib noted.  

To address the evidence gap, the researchers emulated a randomized target trial using observational data.

In this type of study, Dr. Seib explained, “although patients aren’t randomly assigned to a treatment, complex statistical methods are used to adjust for baseline confounders in an attempt to emulate random treatment assignment and account for bias that may affect the timing of when patients receive treatment.”

Using national Veterans Health Administration data, researchers identified 43,697 veterans with a new biochemical diagnosis of PHPT, defined as elevated parathyroid hormone (> 65 ng/mL) within 6 months of an elevated serum calcium level (> 32.55 mmol/L or >10.2 mg/dL), from 2000 to 2019.

Of these patients, 3,804 underwent parathyroidectomy within 1 year of diagnosis of PHPT, and 39,893 did not, and instead, a watchful waiting approach was adopted.

To be included in the analysis, patients had to have an eGFR above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² for 12 months before PHPT diagnosis to exclude secondary or tertiary hyperparathyroidism.

The primary outcome was a sustained decline in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline.

In the overall cohort, patients had a mean pretreatment eGFR of 71.8 mL/min per 1.73 m². The mean age of patients was 67, 88% were men, and 68% were White.

After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 6.7% of the patients had a decline in eGFR of at least 50%.

The cumulative incidence of this decline in eGFR was 5.1% at 5 years and 10.8% at 10 years in patients who had had early parathyroidectomy compared with 5.1% and 12.0%, respectively, in patients who did not undergo surgery.

In the overall population, the risk of at least a 50% decline in eGFR was similar in the early parathyroidectomy group versus the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16).

However, diving deeper showed that parathyroidectomy was associated with a reduced risk of the primary outcome among patients younger than 60 years (adjusted HR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.59-0.93) but not among those aged 60 or older (adjusted HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 0.87-1.34).

“When participating in shared decision-making for older adults [age 60 and older] with PHPT, clinicians should not consider parathyroidectomy for potential benefits of preservation of kidney function,” the researchers reiterated.

“For younger patients, clinicians should discuss the potential benefit of parathyroidectomy to reduce the risk for CKD and associated complications in adults with PHPT,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early parathyroidectomy within 1 year of diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) did not reduce the risk of a sustained decline in kidney function, measured by a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 50%, compared with observation (no surgery) in adults aged 60 and older.

Early parathyroidectomy was, however, associated with a reduced adjusted risk of this decline in kidney function in patients with newly diagnosed PHPT who were younger than age 60.

The findings, based on data from close to 43,000 veterans, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The important takeaway from our study is that for older adults [age 60 or older] with primary hyperparathyroidism, preservation of kidney function should not be a primary consideration when making decisions about whether to undergo parathyroidectomy,” lead author Carolyn D. Seib, MD, told this news organization.

“It is important that physicians also discuss with their patients the potential long-term benefits of parathyroidectomy related to a reduced risk of fractures, kidney stones, and cardiovascular disease, and improved quality of life, in addition to the need for lifelong surveillance if surgery is declined, weighing these against an individual patient’s risk of surgery,” said Dr. Seib, a surgeon at Palo Alto (Calif.) VA Medical Center.

“However, in patients younger than 60, early parathyroidectomy may prevent progression to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and should be more strongly considered,” she noted.

Parathyroidectomy, she observed, is a low-risk outpatient surgery for most adults.

“Potential complications of surgery include temporary or permanent hoarseness, hypoparathyroidism (low postoperative parathyroid function), bleeding requiring return to the operating room, and complications related to general anesthesia, all of which are rare,” said Dr. Seib.

“Surgery by a high-volume surgeon is associated with a reduced risk of complications, so patients should seek out an experienced parathyroid surgeon,” she emphasized.  

Moreover, parathyroidectomy is the only treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism.
 

Does parathyroidectomy slow loss of kidney function?

Multidisciplinary guidelines recommend parathyroidectomy, at least in part to mitigate the risk for, and effects related to, the progression of CKD in patients with PHPT and an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the researchers wrote.

However, whether parathyroidectomy slows the loss of kidney function in adults with PHPT is not clear.

Guidelines also state that “observation for PHPT disease progression can be considered when patients have no obvious end organ damage (i.e., eGFR > 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², normal bone mineral density, and no history of kidney stones or fractures),” Dr. Seib noted.  

To address the evidence gap, the researchers emulated a randomized target trial using observational data.

In this type of study, Dr. Seib explained, “although patients aren’t randomly assigned to a treatment, complex statistical methods are used to adjust for baseline confounders in an attempt to emulate random treatment assignment and account for bias that may affect the timing of when patients receive treatment.”

Using national Veterans Health Administration data, researchers identified 43,697 veterans with a new biochemical diagnosis of PHPT, defined as elevated parathyroid hormone (> 65 ng/mL) within 6 months of an elevated serum calcium level (> 32.55 mmol/L or >10.2 mg/dL), from 2000 to 2019.

Of these patients, 3,804 underwent parathyroidectomy within 1 year of diagnosis of PHPT, and 39,893 did not, and instead, a watchful waiting approach was adopted.

To be included in the analysis, patients had to have an eGFR above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² for 12 months before PHPT diagnosis to exclude secondary or tertiary hyperparathyroidism.

The primary outcome was a sustained decline in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline.

In the overall cohort, patients had a mean pretreatment eGFR of 71.8 mL/min per 1.73 m². The mean age of patients was 67, 88% were men, and 68% were White.

After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 6.7% of the patients had a decline in eGFR of at least 50%.

The cumulative incidence of this decline in eGFR was 5.1% at 5 years and 10.8% at 10 years in patients who had had early parathyroidectomy compared with 5.1% and 12.0%, respectively, in patients who did not undergo surgery.

In the overall population, the risk of at least a 50% decline in eGFR was similar in the early parathyroidectomy group versus the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16).

However, diving deeper showed that parathyroidectomy was associated with a reduced risk of the primary outcome among patients younger than 60 years (adjusted HR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.59-0.93) but not among those aged 60 or older (adjusted HR, 1.08, 95% CI, 0.87-1.34).

“When participating in shared decision-making for older adults [age 60 and older] with PHPT, clinicians should not consider parathyroidectomy for potential benefits of preservation of kidney function,” the researchers reiterated.

“For younger patients, clinicians should discuss the potential benefit of parathyroidectomy to reduce the risk for CKD and associated complications in adults with PHPT,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has shown a substantial variation in the blood pressure response to various antihypertensive medications between individuals, raising the possibility of future personalized therapy.

“We found that using the optimal antihypertensive drug for a particular patient resulted in an average of a 4.4 mm Hg greater reduction of blood pressure compared with a random choice of the other drugs. That is quite a substantial difference, and could be equivalent to adding in another drug,” lead author Johan Sundström, MD, Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, told this news organization.

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

“These preliminary findings suggest that some people may be better treated with one antihypertensive drug rather than another. This is opening up the field of hypertension for personalized medicine,” he added.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The authors noted that despite global access to multiple classes of highly effective blood pressure-lowering drugs, only one in four women and one in five men with hypertension reach treatment targets. While most hypertension guidelines advocate combination pharmacotherapy, many patients in routine care continue to be treated with monotherapy, with adverse effects and nonadherence being important clinical problems.

“One drug often does not give enough blood pressure reduction, but patients are often reluctant to up-titrate to two drugs,” Dr. Sundström said. “While we know that the four recommended classes of antihypertensives lower blood pressure equally well on average, we don’t know if their efficacy is the same in individual patients.

“We wondered whether there could be different optimal drugs for different people, and if we could identify the optimal drug for each person then maybe more patients could get to target levels with just one drug,” he said.

The researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, repeated crossover trial at an outpatient research clinic in Sweden, studying 280 men and women with grade 1 hypertension at low risk for cardiovascular events.

Each participant was scheduled for 2 months’ treatment in random order with each of four different classes of antihypertensive drugs: an ACE inhibitor, lisinopril; an angiotensin II blocker, candesartan; a thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide; a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine.

There were then repeated treatment periods for two drug classes to try to account for any effect of a particular event that might have affected the blood pressure at one point in time. Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure was measured at the end of each treatment period.

Results showed that variation in systolic blood pressure was large between treatments on average, between participants on average, within participants taking the same treatment, and between treatments in the same participant.

Overall, personalized treatment using the optimal single-drug therapy led to a 4.4–mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure in the trial population than a random choice of any of the other drug classes.

Taking into consideration that lisinopril was found to be on average the most efficacious of the drugs at the selected doses, personalized treatment compared with lisinopril still led to a 3.1–mm Hg improvement in systolic blood pressure.

The researchers noted that the mean additional blood pressure reduction achievable by using the optimal agent was of a magnitude twice that achieved by doubling the dose of a first drug, and more than half that of adding a second drug on average.

While there were only small differences between certain drugs (e.g., candesartan vs. lisinopril; amlodipine vs. hydrochlorothiazide), for all other comparisons tested, the choice was important, with particularly large gains to be made by personalizing the choice between candesartan vs. amlodipine and between lisinopril vs. amlodipine.

In addition, some people showed very large differences in response to different drugs, whereas others did not have much difference at all.
 

How to identify the optimal drug?

“The million-dollar question is how we identify the best drug for each individual patient,” Dr. Sundström said. “This study has opened Pandora’s box. We now need to figure out how to go forward and how we tailor treatment in each patient.”

In the study, the researchers suggest that personalizing therapy could be achieved either by identifying the phenotypic characteristics that are associated with enhanced response to one treatment vs. another or by directly measuring the individual’s responses to a series of treatments to ascertain which is most effective.

Addressing the first scenario, Dr. Sundström explained: “We can analyze the characteristics of patients who did best on each drug. There are many variables we can look at here such as age, diet, baseline blood pressure, exercise levels, smoking status, race, body weight, salt intake, and findings from genetic tests. We are going to try to look into these to see if we can find any predictors of response to various different drugs.”

For the second strategy, he suggested that patients starting pharmacologic therapy could try a few different treatments. “For example, we could give patients two different drugs and ask them to alternate treatment periods with each of them and measure their blood pressure with a home monitoring kit and record adverse effects.”

Nonadherence “is such a big problem with antihypertensives,” he added. “This approach may allow patients to be more empowered when choosing the right treatment, which should help adherence in the longer term.”
 

‘Proof-of-principle’

Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial, Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, wrote: “At this stage, the findings are more theoretical than immediately practical for the implementation of personalized antihypertensive drug therapy, but the study does provide proof-of-principle and the authors suggest a few scenarios in which a personalized approach could be used in the future.”

He said the practical ramifications of personally targeted therapy remain unclear, given that determination of an individual’s response to a series of short test treatments before selecting long-term therapy may be considered too cumbersome, and currently few phenotypic markers are currently available that would be likely to accurately predict the individual response to a particular therapy.

Dr. Carey concluded that the results of this study “encourage the further pursuit of larger randomized trials using similar repeated crossover designs to validate this concept and eventually in trials with longer follow-up data to determine whether there is improvement in long-term clinical outcomes compared with current strategies.”

He added that the results support the possibility that personalized medical treatment of hypertension “may ultimately supplement or even supplant the current method of antihypertensive drug decision-making in the future.”

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council; Kjell and Märta Beijer Foundation; and Anders Wiklöf. Dr. Sundström reported owning stock in Symptoms Europe AB and Anagram Kommunikation AB. Coauthor Emil Hagström, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Pfizer and Amgen and personal fees from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amarin, and Novartis. Coauthor Ollie Östlund, PhD, reported fees from Uppsala University paid to his institution, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, for its participation in the PHYSIC trial during the conduct of the study. Dr. Carey reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new study has shown a substantial variation in the blood pressure response to various antihypertensive medications between individuals, raising the possibility of future personalized therapy.

“We found that using the optimal antihypertensive drug for a particular patient resulted in an average of a 4.4 mm Hg greater reduction of blood pressure compared with a random choice of the other drugs. That is quite a substantial difference, and could be equivalent to adding in another drug,” lead author Johan Sundström, MD, Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, told this news organization.

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

“These preliminary findings suggest that some people may be better treated with one antihypertensive drug rather than another. This is opening up the field of hypertension for personalized medicine,” he added.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The authors noted that despite global access to multiple classes of highly effective blood pressure-lowering drugs, only one in four women and one in five men with hypertension reach treatment targets. While most hypertension guidelines advocate combination pharmacotherapy, many patients in routine care continue to be treated with monotherapy, with adverse effects and nonadherence being important clinical problems.

“One drug often does not give enough blood pressure reduction, but patients are often reluctant to up-titrate to two drugs,” Dr. Sundström said. “While we know that the four recommended classes of antihypertensives lower blood pressure equally well on average, we don’t know if their efficacy is the same in individual patients.

“We wondered whether there could be different optimal drugs for different people, and if we could identify the optimal drug for each person then maybe more patients could get to target levels with just one drug,” he said.

The researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, repeated crossover trial at an outpatient research clinic in Sweden, studying 280 men and women with grade 1 hypertension at low risk for cardiovascular events.

Each participant was scheduled for 2 months’ treatment in random order with each of four different classes of antihypertensive drugs: an ACE inhibitor, lisinopril; an angiotensin II blocker, candesartan; a thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide; a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine.

There were then repeated treatment periods for two drug classes to try to account for any effect of a particular event that might have affected the blood pressure at one point in time. Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure was measured at the end of each treatment period.

Results showed that variation in systolic blood pressure was large between treatments on average, between participants on average, within participants taking the same treatment, and between treatments in the same participant.

Overall, personalized treatment using the optimal single-drug therapy led to a 4.4–mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure in the trial population than a random choice of any of the other drug classes.

Taking into consideration that lisinopril was found to be on average the most efficacious of the drugs at the selected doses, personalized treatment compared with lisinopril still led to a 3.1–mm Hg improvement in systolic blood pressure.

The researchers noted that the mean additional blood pressure reduction achievable by using the optimal agent was of a magnitude twice that achieved by doubling the dose of a first drug, and more than half that of adding a second drug on average.

While there were only small differences between certain drugs (e.g., candesartan vs. lisinopril; amlodipine vs. hydrochlorothiazide), for all other comparisons tested, the choice was important, with particularly large gains to be made by personalizing the choice between candesartan vs. amlodipine and between lisinopril vs. amlodipine.

In addition, some people showed very large differences in response to different drugs, whereas others did not have much difference at all.
 

How to identify the optimal drug?

“The million-dollar question is how we identify the best drug for each individual patient,” Dr. Sundström said. “This study has opened Pandora’s box. We now need to figure out how to go forward and how we tailor treatment in each patient.”

In the study, the researchers suggest that personalizing therapy could be achieved either by identifying the phenotypic characteristics that are associated with enhanced response to one treatment vs. another or by directly measuring the individual’s responses to a series of treatments to ascertain which is most effective.

Addressing the first scenario, Dr. Sundström explained: “We can analyze the characteristics of patients who did best on each drug. There are many variables we can look at here such as age, diet, baseline blood pressure, exercise levels, smoking status, race, body weight, salt intake, and findings from genetic tests. We are going to try to look into these to see if we can find any predictors of response to various different drugs.”

For the second strategy, he suggested that patients starting pharmacologic therapy could try a few different treatments. “For example, we could give patients two different drugs and ask them to alternate treatment periods with each of them and measure their blood pressure with a home monitoring kit and record adverse effects.”

Nonadherence “is such a big problem with antihypertensives,” he added. “This approach may allow patients to be more empowered when choosing the right treatment, which should help adherence in the longer term.”
 

‘Proof-of-principle’

Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial, Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, wrote: “At this stage, the findings are more theoretical than immediately practical for the implementation of personalized antihypertensive drug therapy, but the study does provide proof-of-principle and the authors suggest a few scenarios in which a personalized approach could be used in the future.”

He said the practical ramifications of personally targeted therapy remain unclear, given that determination of an individual’s response to a series of short test treatments before selecting long-term therapy may be considered too cumbersome, and currently few phenotypic markers are currently available that would be likely to accurately predict the individual response to a particular therapy.

Dr. Carey concluded that the results of this study “encourage the further pursuit of larger randomized trials using similar repeated crossover designs to validate this concept and eventually in trials with longer follow-up data to determine whether there is improvement in long-term clinical outcomes compared with current strategies.”

He added that the results support the possibility that personalized medical treatment of hypertension “may ultimately supplement or even supplant the current method of antihypertensive drug decision-making in the future.”

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council; Kjell and Märta Beijer Foundation; and Anders Wiklöf. Dr. Sundström reported owning stock in Symptoms Europe AB and Anagram Kommunikation AB. Coauthor Emil Hagström, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Pfizer and Amgen and personal fees from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amarin, and Novartis. Coauthor Ollie Östlund, PhD, reported fees from Uppsala University paid to his institution, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, for its participation in the PHYSIC trial during the conduct of the study. Dr. Carey reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new study has shown a substantial variation in the blood pressure response to various antihypertensive medications between individuals, raising the possibility of future personalized therapy.

“We found that using the optimal antihypertensive drug for a particular patient resulted in an average of a 4.4 mm Hg greater reduction of blood pressure compared with a random choice of the other drugs. That is quite a substantial difference, and could be equivalent to adding in another drug,” lead author Johan Sundström, MD, Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, told this news organization.

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

“These preliminary findings suggest that some people may be better treated with one antihypertensive drug rather than another. This is opening up the field of hypertension for personalized medicine,” he added.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The authors noted that despite global access to multiple classes of highly effective blood pressure-lowering drugs, only one in four women and one in five men with hypertension reach treatment targets. While most hypertension guidelines advocate combination pharmacotherapy, many patients in routine care continue to be treated with monotherapy, with adverse effects and nonadherence being important clinical problems.

“One drug often does not give enough blood pressure reduction, but patients are often reluctant to up-titrate to two drugs,” Dr. Sundström said. “While we know that the four recommended classes of antihypertensives lower blood pressure equally well on average, we don’t know if their efficacy is the same in individual patients.

“We wondered whether there could be different optimal drugs for different people, and if we could identify the optimal drug for each person then maybe more patients could get to target levels with just one drug,” he said.

The researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, repeated crossover trial at an outpatient research clinic in Sweden, studying 280 men and women with grade 1 hypertension at low risk for cardiovascular events.

Each participant was scheduled for 2 months’ treatment in random order with each of four different classes of antihypertensive drugs: an ACE inhibitor, lisinopril; an angiotensin II blocker, candesartan; a thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide; a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine.

There were then repeated treatment periods for two drug classes to try to account for any effect of a particular event that might have affected the blood pressure at one point in time. Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure was measured at the end of each treatment period.

Results showed that variation in systolic blood pressure was large between treatments on average, between participants on average, within participants taking the same treatment, and between treatments in the same participant.

Overall, personalized treatment using the optimal single-drug therapy led to a 4.4–mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure in the trial population than a random choice of any of the other drug classes.

Taking into consideration that lisinopril was found to be on average the most efficacious of the drugs at the selected doses, personalized treatment compared with lisinopril still led to a 3.1–mm Hg improvement in systolic blood pressure.

The researchers noted that the mean additional blood pressure reduction achievable by using the optimal agent was of a magnitude twice that achieved by doubling the dose of a first drug, and more than half that of adding a second drug on average.

While there were only small differences between certain drugs (e.g., candesartan vs. lisinopril; amlodipine vs. hydrochlorothiazide), for all other comparisons tested, the choice was important, with particularly large gains to be made by personalizing the choice between candesartan vs. amlodipine and between lisinopril vs. amlodipine.

In addition, some people showed very large differences in response to different drugs, whereas others did not have much difference at all.
 

How to identify the optimal drug?

“The million-dollar question is how we identify the best drug for each individual patient,” Dr. Sundström said. “This study has opened Pandora’s box. We now need to figure out how to go forward and how we tailor treatment in each patient.”

In the study, the researchers suggest that personalizing therapy could be achieved either by identifying the phenotypic characteristics that are associated with enhanced response to one treatment vs. another or by directly measuring the individual’s responses to a series of treatments to ascertain which is most effective.

Addressing the first scenario, Dr. Sundström explained: “We can analyze the characteristics of patients who did best on each drug. There are many variables we can look at here such as age, diet, baseline blood pressure, exercise levels, smoking status, race, body weight, salt intake, and findings from genetic tests. We are going to try to look into these to see if we can find any predictors of response to various different drugs.”

For the second strategy, he suggested that patients starting pharmacologic therapy could try a few different treatments. “For example, we could give patients two different drugs and ask them to alternate treatment periods with each of them and measure their blood pressure with a home monitoring kit and record adverse effects.”

Nonadherence “is such a big problem with antihypertensives,” he added. “This approach may allow patients to be more empowered when choosing the right treatment, which should help adherence in the longer term.”
 

‘Proof-of-principle’

Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial, Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, wrote: “At this stage, the findings are more theoretical than immediately practical for the implementation of personalized antihypertensive drug therapy, but the study does provide proof-of-principle and the authors suggest a few scenarios in which a personalized approach could be used in the future.”

He said the practical ramifications of personally targeted therapy remain unclear, given that determination of an individual’s response to a series of short test treatments before selecting long-term therapy may be considered too cumbersome, and currently few phenotypic markers are currently available that would be likely to accurately predict the individual response to a particular therapy.

Dr. Carey concluded that the results of this study “encourage the further pursuit of larger randomized trials using similar repeated crossover designs to validate this concept and eventually in trials with longer follow-up data to determine whether there is improvement in long-term clinical outcomes compared with current strategies.”

He added that the results support the possibility that personalized medical treatment of hypertension “may ultimately supplement or even supplant the current method of antihypertensive drug decision-making in the future.”

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council; Kjell and Märta Beijer Foundation; and Anders Wiklöf. Dr. Sundström reported owning stock in Symptoms Europe AB and Anagram Kommunikation AB. Coauthor Emil Hagström, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Pfizer and Amgen and personal fees from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amarin, and Novartis. Coauthor Ollie Östlund, PhD, reported fees from Uppsala University paid to his institution, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, for its participation in the PHYSIC trial during the conduct of the study. Dr. Carey reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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