Clinical Endocrinology News

NEW ORLEANS – Twenty cardiology clinics successfully intensified the medical care they gave patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) after receiving a simple and scalable investigational intervention that gave the clinics’ staffs guidance on best prescribing practices and implementation and also provided quality-improvement feedback.

Within a year, these clinics quadrupled optimal medical management of these patients, compared with control clinics, in a randomized trial involving a total of 43 clinics and 1,049 patients.

“This multifaceted intervention is effective in increasing the prescription of evidence-based therapies in adults with T2D and ASCVD,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The next step is to scale this intervention across cardiology practices” interested in improving the quality of care they deliver to these patients, added Dr. Pagidipati, a cardiologist specializing in cardiometabolic disease prevention at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

The goal is getting patients on triple therapy

The primary outcome of the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial was the change in the number of patients with T2D and ASCVD who received prescriptions for agents from three recommended medication classes and at recommended dosages: a high-intensity statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and at least one agent from either of two classes that have both cardiovascular-protective and antihyperglycemic effects: the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists.

Among the 457 patients treated at the 20 cardiology clinics who received the quality-improvement intervention, 37.9% were on the promoted triple therapy after 12 months, compared with 14.5% of the 588 patients treated at the 23 clinics that continued with their usual care approach. This 23.4–percentage point increase in triple-class prescribing at recommended dosages represented a significant 4.4-fold increase in the goal prescribing endpoint after adjustment for possible confounders, Dr. Pagidipati reported.

Simultaneously with her report, the findings also appeared online in JAMA.

At baseline, 41%-50% of the patients were on both a high-intensity statin and a RASi, with a total of about 58%-67% on a high-intensity statin and about 70%-75% on a RASi. Fewer than 1% of patients were on SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1–receptor agonists at baseline. By design, no patient could be on all three categories of medication at baseline.

At their last follow-up visit (after 12 months for 97% of patients, or after 6 months for the remainder) 71% of the patients at practices that received the intervention were on a high-intensity statin, 81% were taking a RASi, and 60% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1–receptor agonist. Among the control patients, 58% were on a high-intensity statin, 68% on a RASi, and 36% were on one of the antihyperglycemic agents.

Effective interventions and the need for a champion

The clinics randomized to the active arm received instruction from a three-member team, either from an in-person or virtual one-time visit, on an intervention comprising several initiatives:

• Analysis of the barriers to evidence-based care at each clinic.
• Development of local interdisciplinary care pathways to address the identified barriers.
• Facilitation of care coordination among clinicians – particularly among cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinicians.
• Education of the clinic staff, including provision of educational materials.
• Auditing of clinic performance using specified metrics and feedback on the findings.

Clinics in the usual care group were given current clinical practice guidelines.

The investigational intervention was, by design, “low-tech and designed to be scalable,” explained Dr. Pagidipati, and once the COVID pandemic started the intervention team shifted to a virtual consultation with participating practices that was mostly front-loaded, followed by monthly phone calls to give clinics feedback on their progress.

Among the most helpful aspects of the intervention was involving the entire clinic staff, including pharmacists, nurses, and advanced care practitioners; boosting familiarity with the relevant medications and their appropriate use; and advice on navigating insurance-coverage barriers such as prior authorizations.

“What was most critical was having a local champion who took on making this effort an important part” of what the clinic was trying to do, she explained. “All it takes is passion, and the tenacity of a bulldog,” Dr. Pagidipati said.

Research advances often don’t translate into management changes

“We don’t do a great job of translating findings from trials to patient care, so any method we can use to improve that will improve practice,” commented Kristen B. Campbell, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist at Duke who was not involved in the study.

“Although the trial was not powered to look at patient outcomes, we think that patients will benefit” because all the recommended medication uses have been proven to help patients in prior trials, Dr. Campbell noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“A particular strength of this study was its simple design. All the interventions are low-tech and scalable.”

The low level of use of guideline-directed medical therapy in American adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is “incredible,” said Christopher B. Granger, MD, a senior investigator on the study and a cardiologist and professor at Duke.

The researchers who ran the study are now focused on evaluating which cardiology clinics and patients had the most success from the intervention and are using that information to further refine implementation. They are also planning to encourage cardiology practices as well as other relevant medical groups to incorporate the intervention and implementation model used in the trial. The intervention program is detailed and available at no charge on the COORDINATE-Diabetes website.

COORDINATE-Diabetes received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Dr. Pagidipati has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics, and she has received research grants from Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Eggland’s Best. Dr. Campbell had no disclosures. Dr. Granger has received personal fees and research funding from numerous companies.

NEW ORLEANS – Twenty cardiology clinics successfully intensified the medical care they gave patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) after receiving a simple and scalable investigational intervention that gave the clinics’ staffs guidance on best prescribing practices and implementation and also provided quality-improvement feedback.

Within a year, these clinics quadrupled optimal medical management of these patients, compared with control clinics, in a randomized trial involving a total of 43 clinics and 1,049 patients.

“This multifaceted intervention is effective in increasing the prescription of evidence-based therapies in adults with T2D and ASCVD,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The next step is to scale this intervention across cardiology practices” interested in improving the quality of care they deliver to these patients, added Dr. Pagidipati, a cardiologist specializing in cardiometabolic disease prevention at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

The goal is getting patients on triple therapy

The primary outcome of the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial was the change in the number of patients with T2D and ASCVD who received prescriptions for agents from three recommended medication classes and at recommended dosages: a high-intensity statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and at least one agent from either of two classes that have both cardiovascular-protective and antihyperglycemic effects: the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists.

Among the 457 patients treated at the 20 cardiology clinics who received the quality-improvement intervention, 37.9% were on the promoted triple therapy after 12 months, compared with 14.5% of the 588 patients treated at the 23 clinics that continued with their usual care approach. This 23.4–percentage point increase in triple-class prescribing at recommended dosages represented a significant 4.4-fold increase in the goal prescribing endpoint after adjustment for possible confounders, Dr. Pagidipati reported.

Simultaneously with her report, the findings also appeared online in JAMA.

At baseline, 41%-50% of the patients were on both a high-intensity statin and a RASi, with a total of about 58%-67% on a high-intensity statin and about 70%-75% on a RASi. Fewer than 1% of patients were on SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1–receptor agonists at baseline. By design, no patient could be on all three categories of medication at baseline.

At their last follow-up visit (after 12 months for 97% of patients, or after 6 months for the remainder) 71% of the patients at practices that received the intervention were on a high-intensity statin, 81% were taking a RASi, and 60% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1–receptor agonist. Among the control patients, 58% were on a high-intensity statin, 68% on a RASi, and 36% were on one of the antihyperglycemic agents.

Effective interventions and the need for a champion

The clinics randomized to the active arm received instruction from a three-member team, either from an in-person or virtual one-time visit, on an intervention comprising several initiatives:

• Analysis of the barriers to evidence-based care at each clinic.
• Development of local interdisciplinary care pathways to address the identified barriers.
• Facilitation of care coordination among clinicians – particularly among cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinicians.
• Education of the clinic staff, including provision of educational materials.
• Auditing of clinic performance using specified metrics and feedback on the findings.

Clinics in the usual care group were given current clinical practice guidelines.

The investigational intervention was, by design, “low-tech and designed to be scalable,” explained Dr. Pagidipati, and once the COVID pandemic started the intervention team shifted to a virtual consultation with participating practices that was mostly front-loaded, followed by monthly phone calls to give clinics feedback on their progress.

Among the most helpful aspects of the intervention was involving the entire clinic staff, including pharmacists, nurses, and advanced care practitioners; boosting familiarity with the relevant medications and their appropriate use; and advice on navigating insurance-coverage barriers such as prior authorizations.

“What was most critical was having a local champion who took on making this effort an important part” of what the clinic was trying to do, she explained. “All it takes is passion, and the tenacity of a bulldog,” Dr. Pagidipati said.

Research advances often don’t translate into management changes

“We don’t do a great job of translating findings from trials to patient care, so any method we can use to improve that will improve practice,” commented Kristen B. Campbell, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist at Duke who was not involved in the study.

“Although the trial was not powered to look at patient outcomes, we think that patients will benefit” because all the recommended medication uses have been proven to help patients in prior trials, Dr. Campbell noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“A particular strength of this study was its simple design. All the interventions are low-tech and scalable.”

The low level of use of guideline-directed medical therapy in American adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is “incredible,” said Christopher B. Granger, MD, a senior investigator on the study and a cardiologist and professor at Duke.

The researchers who ran the study are now focused on evaluating which cardiology clinics and patients had the most success from the intervention and are using that information to further refine implementation. They are also planning to encourage cardiology practices as well as other relevant medical groups to incorporate the intervention and implementation model used in the trial. The intervention program is detailed and available at no charge on the COORDINATE-Diabetes website.

COORDINATE-Diabetes received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Dr. Pagidipati has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics, and she has received research grants from Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Eggland’s Best. Dr. Campbell had no disclosures. Dr. Granger has received personal fees and research funding from numerous companies.

NEW ORLEANS – Twenty cardiology clinics successfully intensified the medical care they gave patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) after receiving a simple and scalable investigational intervention that gave the clinics’ staffs guidance on best prescribing practices and implementation and also provided quality-improvement feedback.

Within a year, these clinics quadrupled optimal medical management of these patients, compared with control clinics, in a randomized trial involving a total of 43 clinics and 1,049 patients.

“This multifaceted intervention is effective in increasing the prescription of evidence-based therapies in adults with T2D and ASCVD,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The next step is to scale this intervention across cardiology practices” interested in improving the quality of care they deliver to these patients, added Dr. Pagidipati, a cardiologist specializing in cardiometabolic disease prevention at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

The goal is getting patients on triple therapy

The primary outcome of the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial was the change in the number of patients with T2D and ASCVD who received prescriptions for agents from three recommended medication classes and at recommended dosages: a high-intensity statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and at least one agent from either of two classes that have both cardiovascular-protective and antihyperglycemic effects: the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists.

Among the 457 patients treated at the 20 cardiology clinics who received the quality-improvement intervention, 37.9% were on the promoted triple therapy after 12 months, compared with 14.5% of the 588 patients treated at the 23 clinics that continued with their usual care approach. This 23.4–percentage point increase in triple-class prescribing at recommended dosages represented a significant 4.4-fold increase in the goal prescribing endpoint after adjustment for possible confounders, Dr. Pagidipati reported.

Simultaneously with her report, the findings also appeared online in JAMA.

At baseline, 41%-50% of the patients were on both a high-intensity statin and a RASi, with a total of about 58%-67% on a high-intensity statin and about 70%-75% on a RASi. Fewer than 1% of patients were on SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1–receptor agonists at baseline. By design, no patient could be on all three categories of medication at baseline.

At their last follow-up visit (after 12 months for 97% of patients, or after 6 months for the remainder) 71% of the patients at practices that received the intervention were on a high-intensity statin, 81% were taking a RASi, and 60% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1–receptor agonist. Among the control patients, 58% were on a high-intensity statin, 68% on a RASi, and 36% were on one of the antihyperglycemic agents.

Effective interventions and the need for a champion

The clinics randomized to the active arm received instruction from a three-member team, either from an in-person or virtual one-time visit, on an intervention comprising several initiatives:

• Analysis of the barriers to evidence-based care at each clinic.
• Development of local interdisciplinary care pathways to address the identified barriers.
• Facilitation of care coordination among clinicians – particularly among cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinicians.
• Education of the clinic staff, including provision of educational materials.
• Auditing of clinic performance using specified metrics and feedback on the findings.

Clinics in the usual care group were given current clinical practice guidelines.

The investigational intervention was, by design, “low-tech and designed to be scalable,” explained Dr. Pagidipati, and once the COVID pandemic started the intervention team shifted to a virtual consultation with participating practices that was mostly front-loaded, followed by monthly phone calls to give clinics feedback on their progress.

Among the most helpful aspects of the intervention was involving the entire clinic staff, including pharmacists, nurses, and advanced care practitioners; boosting familiarity with the relevant medications and their appropriate use; and advice on navigating insurance-coverage barriers such as prior authorizations.

“What was most critical was having a local champion who took on making this effort an important part” of what the clinic was trying to do, she explained. “All it takes is passion, and the tenacity of a bulldog,” Dr. Pagidipati said.

Research advances often don’t translate into management changes

“We don’t do a great job of translating findings from trials to patient care, so any method we can use to improve that will improve practice,” commented Kristen B. Campbell, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist at Duke who was not involved in the study.

“Although the trial was not powered to look at patient outcomes, we think that patients will benefit” because all the recommended medication uses have been proven to help patients in prior trials, Dr. Campbell noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“A particular strength of this study was its simple design. All the interventions are low-tech and scalable.”

The low level of use of guideline-directed medical therapy in American adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is “incredible,” said Christopher B. Granger, MD, a senior investigator on the study and a cardiologist and professor at Duke.

The researchers who ran the study are now focused on evaluating which cardiology clinics and patients had the most success from the intervention and are using that information to further refine implementation. They are also planning to encourage cardiology practices as well as other relevant medical groups to incorporate the intervention and implementation model used in the trial. The intervention program is detailed and available at no charge on the COORDINATE-Diabetes website.

COORDINATE-Diabetes received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Dr. Pagidipati has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics, and she has received research grants from Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Eggland’s Best. Dr. Campbell had no disclosures. Dr. Granger has received personal fees and research funding from numerous companies.

Sitting for more than 8 hours per day increases the chances of becoming overweight or obese, unlike sitting for only 4 hours per day, according to a recent Latin American study published in BMC Public Health.

These data come from almost 8,000 people aged 20-65 years (half of whom are women) who participated in the Latin American Study on Nutrition and Health (ELANS). The cross-sectional survey included representative samples from urban populations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. The average time spent sitting was 420 min/d. Ecuador had the lowest time (300 min/day), and Argentina and Peru had the highest (480 min/day).

No amount of sitting time has been associated with a greater health risk, but the World Health Organization recommends that sitting time be minimal.

“We used to believe that any intense physical exercise could compensate for a sedentary life. But now we know that a sedentary lifestyle in general and sitting time in particular have a direct effect and are an independent risk factor for chronic diseases,” said study author Irina Kovalskys, PhD, a pediatric specialist in nutrition and a professor of nutrition at the Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and a principal investigator of ELANS.

Dr. Kovalskys stated that the 420-min average sitting time is worrying in a population such as the one studied, in which 60% of adults are obese and there are high rates of cardiometabolic risk factors. She affirmed that it is important to raise awareness among the population and focus on adolescents.

Felipe Lobelo, PhD, is a Colombian physician, an associate professor of global health at Emory University and director of epidemiology at Kaiser Permanente Georgia, both in Atlanta. He did not participate in this study but promotes the concept of exercise in medicine. The activity of the patient must be included in a clinical setting, and improving the level of physical activity can have a positive impact on health prognosis, he said.

“To make public health recommendations or even advise patients, a cutoff point is needed. Guidelines recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and some countries have started to indicate that we should be concerned about people’s sitting time. There is still no equivalent to the 150 minutes, therefore, these studies are important, especially in the Latin American population,” said Dr. Lobelo.

He explained that the concept of an increased risk of death or chronic disease because of a lack of physical activity arose in the past 50 years, but only in the past 2 decades have we started thinking about sitting time.

“Spending more than 8 hours sitting per day clearly causes a much higher risk of chronic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. It may be a continuous and progressive association, and the point at which this increase becomes exponential is clearly between 6 and 8 hours of sitting time,” Dr. Lobelo added.

The authors expected to find a linear association with risk for being overweight or obese after 4 hours, but they did not find one. “This study has limitations. Among them was that other indicators were not considered, such as health indicators. Collaborations are starting with other research groups, and other studies are being designed,” said study author Gerson Ferrari, PhD, an associate professor at Santiago de Chile University.
 

Comparing indicators

The Latin American study tried to establish a sitting cutoff time after which the risk of becoming overweight or obese increases. It used three indicators of excess weight: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and neck circumference.

Sitting for more than 8 hours increased the chances of excess weight by 10% when measured by BMI and by 13% when neck circumference was used.

Dr. Ferrari stated that the result obtained measuring BMI is the one that should be considered, because it is used in public policy. Neck circumference is a more recent measurement of detection and it is less studied, but it is a valid indicator, with good sensitivity and advantages over others, such as ease of measurement and lack of variation over time.

According to the results of this study, measuring neck circumference may be the most sensitive method of the three. Neck circumference was proportionally greater in people who sat for at least 4, at least 6, and at least 8 hours/day than in those who sat for less than 4, less than 6, and less than 8 hours/day. This relationship was not observed with the other indicators.
 

Broaching the topic

“What is important is uninterrupted sitting time. The recommendation is to break up those sitting times with active periods. Health professionals have already incorporated the concept of moderate to vigorous physical exercise, but nonintense activities are sufficient to reduce sitting time. Yoga may not be vigorous, but it is valuable at reducing sitting time,” said Dr. Kovalskys.

Dr. Ferrari recommended giving patients concrete messages so that they spend as little time possible sitting. “It is better to stand on the bus or the subway even when there is a place to sit. Are you going to talk on the phone? It is better to do it while walking or at least standing instead of sitting.”

A recent literature review conducted by investigators of the University of Birmingham (England) studied the possible molecular and physiologic mechanisms of inactivity time, health consequences, and protection strategies. It offers an evaluation of interventions that can compensate for the immediate negative consequences of inactivity.
 

Physical activity

Some studies suggest that more than 60 min/day of moderate-intensity exercise or more than 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous exercise may be effective at mitigating the increased risk for mortality associated with sitting time, but reduced intensity may not be enough.

Active pauses

Interrupting sitting every 30-60 min to walk or cycle (2-10 min), performing 3 minutes of simple resistance activities every 30 minutes, such as calf or knee lifts, performing intermittent leg movements (1 minute of activity for every 4 minutes of inactivity during a 3-hour protocol session), or pausing to climb stairs (5 minutes every hour) may be beneficial for vascular health. However, not all studies have demonstrated these positive effects, therefore, some populations may need exercise of greater intensity or duration to counteract the negative vascular effects of acute inactivity periods.

Standing workstations

Standing workstations are effective at reducing sitting time in offices but may be ineffective at reducing vascular alterations related to sitting time. Although some experimental studies indicate vascular benefits, epidemiologic studies suggest that long periods of standing can be harmful to vascular health, especially for venous diseases. Recommendations for use should be accompanied by specific regimens on the frequency and duration of the position to attain the maximum benefits and minimize other vascular complications.

One problem that Dr. Lobelo noted is that some doctors ask their patients how active they are, but they do so in a nonstandardized manner. This observation led him to publish, together with the American Heart Association, an article on the importance for health systems of considering physical activity as a vital sign and including it in records in a standardized manner.

He said that “one advantage of having physical activity as a vital sign in patient medical records is that it allows us to identify individuals who are at greater risk.”

Kaiser Permanente asks the following questions: how many minutes of physical activity do you perform regularly per week, and what is the average intensity of that activity? Patients can be classified into the following three groups: those who follow the recommendations, those with almost no activity, and those who perform some physical activity but do not meet the recommended 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous activity.

Recording sitting time is more difficult. Dr. Lobelo indicated that “it is easier for a person to remember how much time they spent running than how long they were sitting.” Regarding the use of technology, he commented that most watches provide a good estimate. Without technology, it can be estimated by asking how much time is spent in the car, on the bus, or in front of the computer or television and then adding up these times.

Dr. Lobelo emphasized that the two behaviors, lack of physical activity and excessive sitting time, have independent associations with health outcomes. But if both are combined, the risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases is not just added but rather is multiplied. These behaviors contribute to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, since most people do not follow either of the two recommendations.

“Studies show that of the two behaviors, the more negative for health would be not following the physical activity recommendations,” said Dr. Lobelo. “If the recommendation of 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity is followed, the associated risk of sitting too much declines by 80%-90%. Additionally, we can prevent, help to manage, and decrease the risk of complications in more than 100 diseases, including infections. During the pandemic, it was observed that more active people had a lower risk of dying or of being hospitalized due to COVID-19 than less active people, independently of other factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Moreover, Dr. Lobelo believes in “practicing what you preach” and advocates that doctors become healthy models.

Dr. Lobelo, Dr. Ferrari, and Dr. Kovalskys disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sitting for more than 8 hours per day increases the chances of becoming overweight or obese, unlike sitting for only 4 hours per day, according to a recent Latin American study published in BMC Public Health.

These data come from almost 8,000 people aged 20-65 years (half of whom are women) who participated in the Latin American Study on Nutrition and Health (ELANS). The cross-sectional survey included representative samples from urban populations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. The average time spent sitting was 420 min/d. Ecuador had the lowest time (300 min/day), and Argentina and Peru had the highest (480 min/day).

No amount of sitting time has been associated with a greater health risk, but the World Health Organization recommends that sitting time be minimal.

“We used to believe that any intense physical exercise could compensate for a sedentary life. But now we know that a sedentary lifestyle in general and sitting time in particular have a direct effect and are an independent risk factor for chronic diseases,” said study author Irina Kovalskys, PhD, a pediatric specialist in nutrition and a professor of nutrition at the Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and a principal investigator of ELANS.

Dr. Kovalskys stated that the 420-min average sitting time is worrying in a population such as the one studied, in which 60% of adults are obese and there are high rates of cardiometabolic risk factors. She affirmed that it is important to raise awareness among the population and focus on adolescents.

Felipe Lobelo, PhD, is a Colombian physician, an associate professor of global health at Emory University and director of epidemiology at Kaiser Permanente Georgia, both in Atlanta. He did not participate in this study but promotes the concept of exercise in medicine. The activity of the patient must be included in a clinical setting, and improving the level of physical activity can have a positive impact on health prognosis, he said.

“To make public health recommendations or even advise patients, a cutoff point is needed. Guidelines recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and some countries have started to indicate that we should be concerned about people’s sitting time. There is still no equivalent to the 150 minutes, therefore, these studies are important, especially in the Latin American population,” said Dr. Lobelo.

He explained that the concept of an increased risk of death or chronic disease because of a lack of physical activity arose in the past 50 years, but only in the past 2 decades have we started thinking about sitting time.

“Spending more than 8 hours sitting per day clearly causes a much higher risk of chronic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. It may be a continuous and progressive association, and the point at which this increase becomes exponential is clearly between 6 and 8 hours of sitting time,” Dr. Lobelo added.

The authors expected to find a linear association with risk for being overweight or obese after 4 hours, but they did not find one. “This study has limitations. Among them was that other indicators were not considered, such as health indicators. Collaborations are starting with other research groups, and other studies are being designed,” said study author Gerson Ferrari, PhD, an associate professor at Santiago de Chile University.
 

Comparing indicators

The Latin American study tried to establish a sitting cutoff time after which the risk of becoming overweight or obese increases. It used three indicators of excess weight: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and neck circumference.

Sitting for more than 8 hours increased the chances of excess weight by 10% when measured by BMI and by 13% when neck circumference was used.

Dr. Ferrari stated that the result obtained measuring BMI is the one that should be considered, because it is used in public policy. Neck circumference is a more recent measurement of detection and it is less studied, but it is a valid indicator, with good sensitivity and advantages over others, such as ease of measurement and lack of variation over time.

According to the results of this study, measuring neck circumference may be the most sensitive method of the three. Neck circumference was proportionally greater in people who sat for at least 4, at least 6, and at least 8 hours/day than in those who sat for less than 4, less than 6, and less than 8 hours/day. This relationship was not observed with the other indicators.
 

Broaching the topic

“What is important is uninterrupted sitting time. The recommendation is to break up those sitting times with active periods. Health professionals have already incorporated the concept of moderate to vigorous physical exercise, but nonintense activities are sufficient to reduce sitting time. Yoga may not be vigorous, but it is valuable at reducing sitting time,” said Dr. Kovalskys.

Dr. Ferrari recommended giving patients concrete messages so that they spend as little time possible sitting. “It is better to stand on the bus or the subway even when there is a place to sit. Are you going to talk on the phone? It is better to do it while walking or at least standing instead of sitting.”

A recent literature review conducted by investigators of the University of Birmingham (England) studied the possible molecular and physiologic mechanisms of inactivity time, health consequences, and protection strategies. It offers an evaluation of interventions that can compensate for the immediate negative consequences of inactivity.
 

Physical activity

Some studies suggest that more than 60 min/day of moderate-intensity exercise or more than 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous exercise may be effective at mitigating the increased risk for mortality associated with sitting time, but reduced intensity may not be enough.

Active pauses

Interrupting sitting every 30-60 min to walk or cycle (2-10 min), performing 3 minutes of simple resistance activities every 30 minutes, such as calf or knee lifts, performing intermittent leg movements (1 minute of activity for every 4 minutes of inactivity during a 3-hour protocol session), or pausing to climb stairs (5 minutes every hour) may be beneficial for vascular health. However, not all studies have demonstrated these positive effects, therefore, some populations may need exercise of greater intensity or duration to counteract the negative vascular effects of acute inactivity periods.

Standing workstations

Standing workstations are effective at reducing sitting time in offices but may be ineffective at reducing vascular alterations related to sitting time. Although some experimental studies indicate vascular benefits, epidemiologic studies suggest that long periods of standing can be harmful to vascular health, especially for venous diseases. Recommendations for use should be accompanied by specific regimens on the frequency and duration of the position to attain the maximum benefits and minimize other vascular complications.

One problem that Dr. Lobelo noted is that some doctors ask their patients how active they are, but they do so in a nonstandardized manner. This observation led him to publish, together with the American Heart Association, an article on the importance for health systems of considering physical activity as a vital sign and including it in records in a standardized manner.

He said that “one advantage of having physical activity as a vital sign in patient medical records is that it allows us to identify individuals who are at greater risk.”

Kaiser Permanente asks the following questions: how many minutes of physical activity do you perform regularly per week, and what is the average intensity of that activity? Patients can be classified into the following three groups: those who follow the recommendations, those with almost no activity, and those who perform some physical activity but do not meet the recommended 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous activity.

Recording sitting time is more difficult. Dr. Lobelo indicated that “it is easier for a person to remember how much time they spent running than how long they were sitting.” Regarding the use of technology, he commented that most watches provide a good estimate. Without technology, it can be estimated by asking how much time is spent in the car, on the bus, or in front of the computer or television and then adding up these times.

Dr. Lobelo emphasized that the two behaviors, lack of physical activity and excessive sitting time, have independent associations with health outcomes. But if both are combined, the risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases is not just added but rather is multiplied. These behaviors contribute to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, since most people do not follow either of the two recommendations.

“Studies show that of the two behaviors, the more negative for health would be not following the physical activity recommendations,” said Dr. Lobelo. “If the recommendation of 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity is followed, the associated risk of sitting too much declines by 80%-90%. Additionally, we can prevent, help to manage, and decrease the risk of complications in more than 100 diseases, including infections. During the pandemic, it was observed that more active people had a lower risk of dying or of being hospitalized due to COVID-19 than less active people, independently of other factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Moreover, Dr. Lobelo believes in “practicing what you preach” and advocates that doctors become healthy models.

Dr. Lobelo, Dr. Ferrari, and Dr. Kovalskys disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sitting for more than 8 hours per day increases the chances of becoming overweight or obese, unlike sitting for only 4 hours per day, according to a recent Latin American study published in BMC Public Health.

These data come from almost 8,000 people aged 20-65 years (half of whom are women) who participated in the Latin American Study on Nutrition and Health (ELANS). The cross-sectional survey included representative samples from urban populations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. The average time spent sitting was 420 min/d. Ecuador had the lowest time (300 min/day), and Argentina and Peru had the highest (480 min/day).

No amount of sitting time has been associated with a greater health risk, but the World Health Organization recommends that sitting time be minimal.

“We used to believe that any intense physical exercise could compensate for a sedentary life. But now we know that a sedentary lifestyle in general and sitting time in particular have a direct effect and are an independent risk factor for chronic diseases,” said study author Irina Kovalskys, PhD, a pediatric specialist in nutrition and a professor of nutrition at the Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and a principal investigator of ELANS.

Dr. Kovalskys stated that the 420-min average sitting time is worrying in a population such as the one studied, in which 60% of adults are obese and there are high rates of cardiometabolic risk factors. She affirmed that it is important to raise awareness among the population and focus on adolescents.

Felipe Lobelo, PhD, is a Colombian physician, an associate professor of global health at Emory University and director of epidemiology at Kaiser Permanente Georgia, both in Atlanta. He did not participate in this study but promotes the concept of exercise in medicine. The activity of the patient must be included in a clinical setting, and improving the level of physical activity can have a positive impact on health prognosis, he said.

“To make public health recommendations or even advise patients, a cutoff point is needed. Guidelines recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and some countries have started to indicate that we should be concerned about people’s sitting time. There is still no equivalent to the 150 minutes, therefore, these studies are important, especially in the Latin American population,” said Dr. Lobelo.

He explained that the concept of an increased risk of death or chronic disease because of a lack of physical activity arose in the past 50 years, but only in the past 2 decades have we started thinking about sitting time.

“Spending more than 8 hours sitting per day clearly causes a much higher risk of chronic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. It may be a continuous and progressive association, and the point at which this increase becomes exponential is clearly between 6 and 8 hours of sitting time,” Dr. Lobelo added.

The authors expected to find a linear association with risk for being overweight or obese after 4 hours, but they did not find one. “This study has limitations. Among them was that other indicators were not considered, such as health indicators. Collaborations are starting with other research groups, and other studies are being designed,” said study author Gerson Ferrari, PhD, an associate professor at Santiago de Chile University.
 

Comparing indicators

The Latin American study tried to establish a sitting cutoff time after which the risk of becoming overweight or obese increases. It used three indicators of excess weight: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and neck circumference.

Sitting for more than 8 hours increased the chances of excess weight by 10% when measured by BMI and by 13% when neck circumference was used.

Dr. Ferrari stated that the result obtained measuring BMI is the one that should be considered, because it is used in public policy. Neck circumference is a more recent measurement of detection and it is less studied, but it is a valid indicator, with good sensitivity and advantages over others, such as ease of measurement and lack of variation over time.

According to the results of this study, measuring neck circumference may be the most sensitive method of the three. Neck circumference was proportionally greater in people who sat for at least 4, at least 6, and at least 8 hours/day than in those who sat for less than 4, less than 6, and less than 8 hours/day. This relationship was not observed with the other indicators.
 

Broaching the topic

“What is important is uninterrupted sitting time. The recommendation is to break up those sitting times with active periods. Health professionals have already incorporated the concept of moderate to vigorous physical exercise, but nonintense activities are sufficient to reduce sitting time. Yoga may not be vigorous, but it is valuable at reducing sitting time,” said Dr. Kovalskys.

Dr. Ferrari recommended giving patients concrete messages so that they spend as little time possible sitting. “It is better to stand on the bus or the subway even when there is a place to sit. Are you going to talk on the phone? It is better to do it while walking or at least standing instead of sitting.”

A recent literature review conducted by investigators of the University of Birmingham (England) studied the possible molecular and physiologic mechanisms of inactivity time, health consequences, and protection strategies. It offers an evaluation of interventions that can compensate for the immediate negative consequences of inactivity.
 

Physical activity

Some studies suggest that more than 60 min/day of moderate-intensity exercise or more than 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous exercise may be effective at mitigating the increased risk for mortality associated with sitting time, but reduced intensity may not be enough.

Active pauses

Interrupting sitting every 30-60 min to walk or cycle (2-10 min), performing 3 minutes of simple resistance activities every 30 minutes, such as calf or knee lifts, performing intermittent leg movements (1 minute of activity for every 4 minutes of inactivity during a 3-hour protocol session), or pausing to climb stairs (5 minutes every hour) may be beneficial for vascular health. However, not all studies have demonstrated these positive effects, therefore, some populations may need exercise of greater intensity or duration to counteract the negative vascular effects of acute inactivity periods.

Standing workstations

Standing workstations are effective at reducing sitting time in offices but may be ineffective at reducing vascular alterations related to sitting time. Although some experimental studies indicate vascular benefits, epidemiologic studies suggest that long periods of standing can be harmful to vascular health, especially for venous diseases. Recommendations for use should be accompanied by specific regimens on the frequency and duration of the position to attain the maximum benefits and minimize other vascular complications.

One problem that Dr. Lobelo noted is that some doctors ask their patients how active they are, but they do so in a nonstandardized manner. This observation led him to publish, together with the American Heart Association, an article on the importance for health systems of considering physical activity as a vital sign and including it in records in a standardized manner.

He said that “one advantage of having physical activity as a vital sign in patient medical records is that it allows us to identify individuals who are at greater risk.”

Kaiser Permanente asks the following questions: how many minutes of physical activity do you perform regularly per week, and what is the average intensity of that activity? Patients can be classified into the following three groups: those who follow the recommendations, those with almost no activity, and those who perform some physical activity but do not meet the recommended 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous activity.

Recording sitting time is more difficult. Dr. Lobelo indicated that “it is easier for a person to remember how much time they spent running than how long they were sitting.” Regarding the use of technology, he commented that most watches provide a good estimate. Without technology, it can be estimated by asking how much time is spent in the car, on the bus, or in front of the computer or television and then adding up these times.

Dr. Lobelo emphasized that the two behaviors, lack of physical activity and excessive sitting time, have independent associations with health outcomes. But if both are combined, the risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases is not just added but rather is multiplied. These behaviors contribute to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, since most people do not follow either of the two recommendations.

“Studies show that of the two behaviors, the more negative for health would be not following the physical activity recommendations,” said Dr. Lobelo. “If the recommendation of 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity is followed, the associated risk of sitting too much declines by 80%-90%. Additionally, we can prevent, help to manage, and decrease the risk of complications in more than 100 diseases, including infections. During the pandemic, it was observed that more active people had a lower risk of dying or of being hospitalized due to COVID-19 than less active people, independently of other factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Moreover, Dr. Lobelo believes in “practicing what you preach” and advocates that doctors become healthy models.

Dr. Lobelo, Dr. Ferrari, and Dr. Kovalskys disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.

The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
 

Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients

This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.

To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.

When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.

Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80^th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80^th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.

Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80^th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.

Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.

Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95^th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.

Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.

According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
 

Treatments become understandable to patients

“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.

A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.

By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.

With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.

She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.

The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
 

Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients

This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.

To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.

When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.

Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80^th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80^th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.

Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80^th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.

Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.

Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95^th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.

Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.

According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
 

Treatments become understandable to patients

“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.

A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.

By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.

With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.

She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.

The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
 

Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients

This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.

To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.

When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.

Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80^th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80^th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.

Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80^th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.

Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.

Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95^th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.

Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.

According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
 

Treatments become understandable to patients

“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.

A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.

By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.

With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.

She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A secondary analysis of a large landmark clinical trial of how the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin effects cardiovascular risk has identified two biomarkers that can help better determine which patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease risk would derive the most benefit from the drug.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

The researchers found that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) levels helped identify a subset of T2D patients at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events who would benefit most from dapagliflozin.

“We’ve shown previously that these two biomarkers are very robust risk indicators for cardiovascular death and heart failure events,” senior study author David A. Morrow, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. “In this study, we now show that the two biomarkers also yield important prognostic information for MACE [major adverse cardiovascular events].”

Although NT-proBNP is typically measured to diagnose heart failure, and hsTnT to diagnose acute MI, Dr. Morrow pointed out that this analysis demonstrated the potential for using the two tests to evaluate risks in T2D patients.
 

Study results

The secondary analysis included 14,565 patients in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. The patients had T2D and multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (about 60%) or established ASCVD (about 40%). All patients had available blood samples and the data were collected from May 2013 to September 2018. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The results were reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

The analysis found that higher baseline concentrations of NT-proBNP increased MACE risks by 62% (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.76) and hsTnT elevated those risks by 59% (95% CI, 1.46-1.74).

Among placebo patients, when divided into risk quartiles, those in the highest quartile had significantly higher risk with both elevated NT-proBNP and hsTnT, compared with those with low concentrations. For example, patients with established ASCVD had a 22.9% risk vs. 9.5% with elevated NT-proBNP (P < .001) and a 24.2% vs. 7.2% risk with elevated hsTnT (P < .001). The gap was similar for patients with multiple risk factors.

Dr. Morrow noted that the main DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial showed that dapagliflozin reduced the rates of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2D, when compared to placebo, but didn’t reach statistical significance for MACE (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347-57).

“We have previously shown that among patients with T2D who have high risk indicators, such as prior MI or long-standing diabetes, dapagliflozin also appeared to reduce MACE,” Dr. Morrow said. “In this study, we find that these two widely available biomarkers also identify a high-risk group who may have even more potential benefits from treatment with an SGLT2i.”

Dr. Morrow noted that the study design – a nested prospective biomarker study within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial – “is a particular strength.”
 

Results clarify which patients will benefit

This secondary analysis of DECLARE-TIMI 58 brings more clarity to the types of T2D patients who will get the most cardiovascular benefits from dapagliflozin, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, and Endowed Chair of Preventive Cardiology at the Lundquist Institute in Torrance, Calif.

Lundquist Institute

“The big picture is, we’ve known for some time from epidemiologic studies that these biomarkers, when they’re elevated, mean that the patient is at higher risk of having a cardiovascular event,” he said, “but I think what it helps us with is in knowing in whom to use dapagliflozin for prevention of ASCVD. The effect in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial was quite modest, but if you can subgroup it, in these high-risk people there’s a more profound effect. It helps in risk stratification because the absolute benefit is larger.”

The specific biomarkers, NT-proBNP and hsTnT, “haven’t been explored very much in clinical trials,” Dr. Budoff said, “so I do think that it’s nice that in a randomized trial it plays out the way we might expect.”

He added that “for many clinicians this is novel, because I don’t think they were aware of the biomarker data, so I think that this does add some clinical benefit in that context.” The findings also strengthen the case to get T2D patients with higher ASCVD risk onto SGLT2 inhibitors if they’re not already, he said.

Dr. Morrow disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Siemens, and InCarda outside the reported work.

Dr. Budoff has no relevant disclosures.

A secondary analysis of a large landmark clinical trial of how the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin effects cardiovascular risk has identified two biomarkers that can help better determine which patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease risk would derive the most benefit from the drug.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

The researchers found that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) levels helped identify a subset of T2D patients at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events who would benefit most from dapagliflozin.

“We’ve shown previously that these two biomarkers are very robust risk indicators for cardiovascular death and heart failure events,” senior study author David A. Morrow, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. “In this study, we now show that the two biomarkers also yield important prognostic information for MACE [major adverse cardiovascular events].”

Although NT-proBNP is typically measured to diagnose heart failure, and hsTnT to diagnose acute MI, Dr. Morrow pointed out that this analysis demonstrated the potential for using the two tests to evaluate risks in T2D patients.
 

Study results

The secondary analysis included 14,565 patients in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. The patients had T2D and multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (about 60%) or established ASCVD (about 40%). All patients had available blood samples and the data were collected from May 2013 to September 2018. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The results were reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

The analysis found that higher baseline concentrations of NT-proBNP increased MACE risks by 62% (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.76) and hsTnT elevated those risks by 59% (95% CI, 1.46-1.74).

Among placebo patients, when divided into risk quartiles, those in the highest quartile had significantly higher risk with both elevated NT-proBNP and hsTnT, compared with those with low concentrations. For example, patients with established ASCVD had a 22.9% risk vs. 9.5% with elevated NT-proBNP (P < .001) and a 24.2% vs. 7.2% risk with elevated hsTnT (P < .001). The gap was similar for patients with multiple risk factors.

Dr. Morrow noted that the main DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial showed that dapagliflozin reduced the rates of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2D, when compared to placebo, but didn’t reach statistical significance for MACE (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347-57).

“We have previously shown that among patients with T2D who have high risk indicators, such as prior MI or long-standing diabetes, dapagliflozin also appeared to reduce MACE,” Dr. Morrow said. “In this study, we find that these two widely available biomarkers also identify a high-risk group who may have even more potential benefits from treatment with an SGLT2i.”

Dr. Morrow noted that the study design – a nested prospective biomarker study within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial – “is a particular strength.”
 

Results clarify which patients will benefit

This secondary analysis of DECLARE-TIMI 58 brings more clarity to the types of T2D patients who will get the most cardiovascular benefits from dapagliflozin, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, and Endowed Chair of Preventive Cardiology at the Lundquist Institute in Torrance, Calif.

Lundquist Institute

“The big picture is, we’ve known for some time from epidemiologic studies that these biomarkers, when they’re elevated, mean that the patient is at higher risk of having a cardiovascular event,” he said, “but I think what it helps us with is in knowing in whom to use dapagliflozin for prevention of ASCVD. The effect in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial was quite modest, but if you can subgroup it, in these high-risk people there’s a more profound effect. It helps in risk stratification because the absolute benefit is larger.”

The specific biomarkers, NT-proBNP and hsTnT, “haven’t been explored very much in clinical trials,” Dr. Budoff said, “so I do think that it’s nice that in a randomized trial it plays out the way we might expect.”

He added that “for many clinicians this is novel, because I don’t think they were aware of the biomarker data, so I think that this does add some clinical benefit in that context.” The findings also strengthen the case to get T2D patients with higher ASCVD risk onto SGLT2 inhibitors if they’re not already, he said.

Dr. Morrow disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Siemens, and InCarda outside the reported work.

Dr. Budoff has no relevant disclosures.

A secondary analysis of a large landmark clinical trial of how the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin effects cardiovascular risk has identified two biomarkers that can help better determine which patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease risk would derive the most benefit from the drug.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

The researchers found that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) levels helped identify a subset of T2D patients at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events who would benefit most from dapagliflozin.

“We’ve shown previously that these two biomarkers are very robust risk indicators for cardiovascular death and heart failure events,” senior study author David A. Morrow, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. “In this study, we now show that the two biomarkers also yield important prognostic information for MACE [major adverse cardiovascular events].”

Although NT-proBNP is typically measured to diagnose heart failure, and hsTnT to diagnose acute MI, Dr. Morrow pointed out that this analysis demonstrated the potential for using the two tests to evaluate risks in T2D patients.
 

Study results

The secondary analysis included 14,565 patients in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. The patients had T2D and multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (about 60%) or established ASCVD (about 40%). All patients had available blood samples and the data were collected from May 2013 to September 2018. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The results were reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

The analysis found that higher baseline concentrations of NT-proBNP increased MACE risks by 62% (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.76) and hsTnT elevated those risks by 59% (95% CI, 1.46-1.74).

Among placebo patients, when divided into risk quartiles, those in the highest quartile had significantly higher risk with both elevated NT-proBNP and hsTnT, compared with those with low concentrations. For example, patients with established ASCVD had a 22.9% risk vs. 9.5% with elevated NT-proBNP (P < .001) and a 24.2% vs. 7.2% risk with elevated hsTnT (P < .001). The gap was similar for patients with multiple risk factors.

Dr. Morrow noted that the main DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial showed that dapagliflozin reduced the rates of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2D, when compared to placebo, but didn’t reach statistical significance for MACE (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347-57).

“We have previously shown that among patients with T2D who have high risk indicators, such as prior MI or long-standing diabetes, dapagliflozin also appeared to reduce MACE,” Dr. Morrow said. “In this study, we find that these two widely available biomarkers also identify a high-risk group who may have even more potential benefits from treatment with an SGLT2i.”

Dr. Morrow noted that the study design – a nested prospective biomarker study within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial – “is a particular strength.”
 

Results clarify which patients will benefit

This secondary analysis of DECLARE-TIMI 58 brings more clarity to the types of T2D patients who will get the most cardiovascular benefits from dapagliflozin, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, and Endowed Chair of Preventive Cardiology at the Lundquist Institute in Torrance, Calif.

Lundquist Institute

“The big picture is, we’ve known for some time from epidemiologic studies that these biomarkers, when they’re elevated, mean that the patient is at higher risk of having a cardiovascular event,” he said, “but I think what it helps us with is in knowing in whom to use dapagliflozin for prevention of ASCVD. The effect in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial was quite modest, but if you can subgroup it, in these high-risk people there’s a more profound effect. It helps in risk stratification because the absolute benefit is larger.”

The specific biomarkers, NT-proBNP and hsTnT, “haven’t been explored very much in clinical trials,” Dr. Budoff said, “so I do think that it’s nice that in a randomized trial it plays out the way we might expect.”

He added that “for many clinicians this is novel, because I don’t think they were aware of the biomarker data, so I think that this does add some clinical benefit in that context.” The findings also strengthen the case to get T2D patients with higher ASCVD risk onto SGLT2 inhibitors if they’re not already, he said.

Dr. Morrow disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Siemens, and InCarda outside the reported work.

Dr. Budoff has no relevant disclosures.

Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.

And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.

The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.  

Pix by Marti/Fotolia

Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet

The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.

“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”  

They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.

Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.

In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.

Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”

“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”

“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.

“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.

‘Small but important effect’

In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”

A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”

Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes. 

However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.

Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.

First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial

The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.

They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.

This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.

Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:

• Standard electronic letter
• Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
• Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
• Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
• Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
• Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)  
• Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
• Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
• Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)

The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.

All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022. 

The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.

The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.

Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).

These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.

The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.

The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.

Subanalysis in CVD

In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).

The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).

Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”

Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.

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

Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.

And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.

The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.  

Pix by Marti/Fotolia

Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet

The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.

“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”  

They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.

Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.

In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.

Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”

“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”

“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.

“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.

‘Small but important effect’

In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”

A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”

Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes. 

However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.

Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.

First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial

The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.

They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.

This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.

Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:

• Standard electronic letter
• Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
• Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
• Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
• Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
• Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)  
• Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
• Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
• Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)

The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.

All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022. 

The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.

The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.

Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).

These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.

The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.

The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.

Subanalysis in CVD

In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).

The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).

Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”

Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.

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

Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.

And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.

The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.  

Pix by Marti/Fotolia

Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet

The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.

“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”  

They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.

Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.

In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.

Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”

“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”

“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.

“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.

‘Small but important effect’

In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”

A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”

Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes. 

However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.

Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.

First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial

The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.

They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.

This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.

Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:

• Standard electronic letter
• Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
• Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
• Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
• Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
• Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)  
• Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
• Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
• Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)

The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.

All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022. 

The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.

The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.

Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).

These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.

The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.

The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.

Subanalysis in CVD

In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).

The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).

Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”

Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

Technologies that allow people to monitor blood sugar and automate the administration of insulin have radically transformed the lives of patients – and children in particular – with type 1 diabetes. But the devices often come with a cost: Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors can irritate the skin at the points of contact, causing some people to stop using their pumps or monitors altogether.

Regular use of lipid-rich skin creams can reduce eczema in children who use insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors to manage type 1 diabetes, Danish researchers reported last month. The article is currently undergoing peer review at The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, and the authors said they hope their approach will deter more children from abandoning diabetes technology.

“A simple thing can actually change a lot,” said Anna Korsgaard Berg, MD, a pediatrician who specializes in diabetes care at Copenhagen University Hospital’s Steno Diabetes Center in Herlev, Denmark, and a coauthor of the new study. “Not all skin reactions can be solved by the skin care program, but it can help improve the issue.”

More than 1.5 million children and adolescents worldwide live with type 1 diabetes, a condition that requires continuous insulin infusion. Insulin pumps meet this need in many wealthier countries, and are often used in combination with sensors that measure a child’s glucose level. Both the American Diabetes Association and the International Society for Adolescent and Pediatric Diabetes recommend insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors as core treatment tools.

Dr. Berg and colleagues, who have previously shown that as many as 90% of children who use these devices experience some kind of skin reaction, want to minimize the rate of such discomfort in hopes that fewer children stop using the devices. According to a 2014 study, 18% of people with type 1 diabetes who stopped using continuous glucose monitors did so because of skin irritation.
 

Lather on that lipid-rich lotion

Dr. Berg and colleagues studied 170 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (average age, 11 years) who use insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, or both. From March 2020 to July 2021, 112 children (55 girls) employed a skin care program developed for the study, while the other 58 (34 girls) did not receive any skin care advice.

The skin care group received instructions about how to gently insert and remove their insulin pumps or glucose monitors, to minimize skin damage. They also were told to avoid disinfectants such as alcohol, which can irritate skin. The children in this group used a cream containing 70% lipids to help rehydrate their skin, applying the salve each day a device was not inserted into their skin.

Eczema can be a real problem for kids who use insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors to manage type 1 diabetes. Researchers found that regular use of lipid-rich skin creams can reduce its incidence.

Although insulin pumps and glucose monitors are kept in place for longer periods of time than they once were, Dr. Berg and colleagues noted, users do periodically remove them when bathing or when undergoing medical tests that involve x-rays. On days when the devices were not in place for a period of time, children in the skin care group were encouraged to follow the protocol.
 

Study results

One-third of children in the skin care group developed eczema or experienced a wound, compared with almost half of the children in the control group, according to the researchers. The absolute difference in developing eczema or wounds between the two groups was 12.9 % (95% confidence interval, –28.7% to 2.9%).

Children in the skin care group were much less likely to develop wounds, the researchers found, when they focused only on wounds and not eczema (odds ratio, 0.29, 95% CI, 0.12-0.68).

Dr. Berg said she would like to explore whether other techniques, such as a combination of patches, adhesives, or other lotions, yield even better results.

“Anything that can help people use technology more consistently is better for both quality of life and diabetes outcomes,” said Priya Prahalad, MD, a specialist in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, Calif. 

Dr. Prahalad, who was not involved in the Danish study, said that although the sample sizes in the trial were relatively small, the data are “headed in the right direction.”

Pediatricians already recommend using moisturizing creams at the sites where pumps or glucose monitors are inserted into the skin, she noted. But the new study simply employed an especially moisturizing cream to mitigate skin damage.

Although one reason for skin irritation may be the repeated insertion and removal of devices, Dr. Berg and Dr. Prahalad stressed that the medical devices themselves may contain allergy-causing components. Device makers are not required to disclose what’s inside the boxes.

“I do not understand why the full content of a device is not by law mandatory to declare, when declaration by law is mandatory for many other products and drugs but not for medical devices,” Dr. Berg said.

Dr. Berg reports receiving lipid cream from Teva Pharmaceuticals and research support from Medtronic. Dr. Prahalad reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Technologies that allow people to monitor blood sugar and automate the administration of insulin have radically transformed the lives of patients – and children in particular – with type 1 diabetes. But the devices often come with a cost: Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors can irritate the skin at the points of contact, causing some people to stop using their pumps or monitors altogether.

Regular use of lipid-rich skin creams can reduce eczema in children who use insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors to manage type 1 diabetes, Danish researchers reported last month. The article is currently undergoing peer review at The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, and the authors said they hope their approach will deter more children from abandoning diabetes technology.

“A simple thing can actually change a lot,” said Anna Korsgaard Berg, MD, a pediatrician who specializes in diabetes care at Copenhagen University Hospital’s Steno Diabetes Center in Herlev, Denmark, and a coauthor of the new study. “Not all skin reactions can be solved by the skin care program, but it can help improve the issue.”

More than 1.5 million children and adolescents worldwide live with type 1 diabetes, a condition that requires continuous insulin infusion. Insulin pumps meet this need in many wealthier countries, and are often used in combination with sensors that measure a child’s glucose level. Both the American Diabetes Association and the International Society for Adolescent and Pediatric Diabetes recommend insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors as core treatment tools.

Dr. Berg and colleagues, who have previously shown that as many as 90% of children who use these devices experience some kind of skin reaction, want to minimize the rate of such discomfort in hopes that fewer children stop using the devices. According to a 2014 study, 18% of people with type 1 diabetes who stopped using continuous glucose monitors did so because of skin irritation.
 

Lather on that lipid-rich lotion

Dr. Berg and colleagues studied 170 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (average age, 11 years) who use insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, or both. From March 2020 to July 2021, 112 children (55 girls) employed a skin care program developed for the study, while the other 58 (34 girls) did not receive any skin care advice.

The skin care group received instructions about how to gently insert and remove their insulin pumps or glucose monitors, to minimize skin damage. They also were told to avoid disinfectants such as alcohol, which can irritate skin. The children in this group used a cream containing 70% lipids to help rehydrate their skin, applying the salve each day a device was not inserted into their skin.

Eczema can be a real problem for kids who use insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors to manage type 1 diabetes. Researchers found that regular use of lipid-rich skin creams can reduce its incidence.

Although insulin pumps and glucose monitors are kept in place for longer periods of time than they once were, Dr. Berg and colleagues noted, users do periodically remove them when bathing or when undergoing medical tests that involve x-rays. On days when the devices were not in place for a period of time, children in the skin care group were encouraged to follow the protocol.
 

Study results

One-third of children in the skin care group developed eczema or experienced a wound, compared with almost half of the children in the control group, according to the researchers. The absolute difference in developing eczema or wounds between the two groups was 12.9 % (95% confidence interval, –28.7% to 2.9%).

Children in the skin care group were much less likely to develop wounds, the researchers found, when they focused only on wounds and not eczema (odds ratio, 0.29, 95% CI, 0.12-0.68).

Dr. Berg said she would like to explore whether other techniques, such as a combination of patches, adhesives, or other lotions, yield even better results.

“Anything that can help people use technology more consistently is better for both quality of life and diabetes outcomes,” said Priya Prahalad, MD, a specialist in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, Calif. 

Dr. Prahalad, who was not involved in the Danish study, said that although the sample sizes in the trial were relatively small, the data are “headed in the right direction.”

Pediatricians already recommend using moisturizing creams at the sites where pumps or glucose monitors are inserted into the skin, she noted. But the new study simply employed an especially moisturizing cream to mitigate skin damage.

Although one reason for skin irritation may be the repeated insertion and removal of devices, Dr. Berg and Dr. Prahalad stressed that the medical devices themselves may contain allergy-causing components. Device makers are not required to disclose what’s inside the boxes.

“I do not understand why the full content of a device is not by law mandatory to declare, when declaration by law is mandatory for many other products and drugs but not for medical devices,” Dr. Berg said.

Dr. Berg reports receiving lipid cream from Teva Pharmaceuticals and research support from Medtronic. Dr. Prahalad reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Technologies that allow people to monitor blood sugar and automate the administration of insulin have radically transformed the lives of patients – and children in particular – with type 1 diabetes. But the devices often come with a cost: Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors can irritate the skin at the points of contact, causing some people to stop using their pumps or monitors altogether.

Regular use of lipid-rich skin creams can reduce eczema in children who use insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors to manage type 1 diabetes, Danish researchers reported last month. The article is currently undergoing peer review at The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, and the authors said they hope their approach will deter more children from abandoning diabetes technology.

“A simple thing can actually change a lot,” said Anna Korsgaard Berg, MD, a pediatrician who specializes in diabetes care at Copenhagen University Hospital’s Steno Diabetes Center in Herlev, Denmark, and a coauthor of the new study. “Not all skin reactions can be solved by the skin care program, but it can help improve the issue.”

More than 1.5 million children and adolescents worldwide live with type 1 diabetes, a condition that requires continuous insulin infusion. Insulin pumps meet this need in many wealthier countries, and are often used in combination with sensors that measure a child’s glucose level. Both the American Diabetes Association and the International Society for Adolescent and Pediatric Diabetes recommend insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors as core treatment tools.

Dr. Berg and colleagues, who have previously shown that as many as 90% of children who use these devices experience some kind of skin reaction, want to minimize the rate of such discomfort in hopes that fewer children stop using the devices. According to a 2014 study, 18% of people with type 1 diabetes who stopped using continuous glucose monitors did so because of skin irritation.
 

Lather on that lipid-rich lotion

Dr. Berg and colleagues studied 170 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (average age, 11 years) who use insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, or both. From March 2020 to July 2021, 112 children (55 girls) employed a skin care program developed for the study, while the other 58 (34 girls) did not receive any skin care advice.

The skin care group received instructions about how to gently insert and remove their insulin pumps or glucose monitors, to minimize skin damage. They also were told to avoid disinfectants such as alcohol, which can irritate skin. The children in this group used a cream containing 70% lipids to help rehydrate their skin, applying the salve each day a device was not inserted into their skin.

Eczema can be a real problem for kids who use insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors to manage type 1 diabetes. Researchers found that regular use of lipid-rich skin creams can reduce its incidence.

Although insulin pumps and glucose monitors are kept in place for longer periods of time than they once were, Dr. Berg and colleagues noted, users do periodically remove them when bathing or when undergoing medical tests that involve x-rays. On days when the devices were not in place for a period of time, children in the skin care group were encouraged to follow the protocol.
 

Study results

One-third of children in the skin care group developed eczema or experienced a wound, compared with almost half of the children in the control group, according to the researchers. The absolute difference in developing eczema or wounds between the two groups was 12.9 % (95% confidence interval, –28.7% to 2.9%).

Children in the skin care group were much less likely to develop wounds, the researchers found, when they focused only on wounds and not eczema (odds ratio, 0.29, 95% CI, 0.12-0.68).

Dr. Berg said she would like to explore whether other techniques, such as a combination of patches, adhesives, or other lotions, yield even better results.

“Anything that can help people use technology more consistently is better for both quality of life and diabetes outcomes,” said Priya Prahalad, MD, a specialist in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, Calif. 

Dr. Prahalad, who was not involved in the Danish study, said that although the sample sizes in the trial were relatively small, the data are “headed in the right direction.”

Pediatricians already recommend using moisturizing creams at the sites where pumps or glucose monitors are inserted into the skin, she noted. But the new study simply employed an especially moisturizing cream to mitigate skin damage.

Although one reason for skin irritation may be the repeated insertion and removal of devices, Dr. Berg and Dr. Prahalad stressed that the medical devices themselves may contain allergy-causing components. Device makers are not required to disclose what’s inside the boxes.

“I do not understand why the full content of a device is not by law mandatory to declare, when declaration by law is mandatory for many other products and drugs but not for medical devices,” Dr. Berg said.

Dr. Berg reports receiving lipid cream from Teva Pharmaceuticals and research support from Medtronic. Dr. Prahalad reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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