Clinical Endocrinology News

It’s best to have patients on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy before discharge after an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), so why not start it right away – even in the cath lab – using some of the most potent LDL cholesterol–lowering agents available?

That was a main idea behind the randomized, sham-controlled EPIC-STEMI trial, in which STEMI patients were started on a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor immediately before direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on top of high-intensity statins.

Those in the trial getting the active agent showed a 22% drop in LDL cholesterol levels by 6 weeks, compared with the control group given a sham injection along with high-intensity statins. They were also more likely to meet LDL cholesterol goals specified in some guidelines, including reduction by at least 50%. And those outcomes were achieved regardless of baseline LDL cholesterol levels or prior statin use.

Adoption of the trial’s early, aggressive LDL cholesterolreduction strategy in practice “has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality” in such cases “by further reducing LDL beyond statins in a much greater number of high-risk patients than are currently being treated with these agents,” suggested principal investigator Shamir R. Mehta, MD, MSc, when presenting the findings at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Adherence to secondary prevention measures in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is much better if they are started before hospital discharge, explained Dr. Mehta, senior scientist with Population Health Research Institute and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But “as soon as the patient has left the hospital, it is much more difficult to get these therapies on board.”

Routine adoption of such aggressive in-hospital, lipid-lowering therapy for the vast population with ACS would likely mean far fewer deaths and cardiovascular events “across a broader patient population.”

EPIC-STEMI is among the first studies to explore the strategy. “I think that’s the point of the trial that we wanted to make, that we don’t yet have data on this. We’re treading very carefully with PCSK9 inhibitors, and it’s just inching forward in populations. And I think we need a bold trial to see whether or not this changes things.”

The PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent) was used in EPIC-STEMI, which was published in EuroIntervention, with Dr. Mehta as lead author, the same day as his presentation. The drug and its sham injection were given on top of either atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg.

Early initiation of statins in patients with acute STEMI has become standard, but there’s good evidence from intracoronary imaging studies suggesting that the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors might promote further stabilization of plaques that could potentially cause recurrent ischemic events.

Treatment with the injectable drugs plus statins led to significant coronary lesion regression in the GLAGOV trial of patients with stable coronary disease. And initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors with high-intensity statins soon after PCI for ACS improved atheroma shrinkage in non–infarct-related arteries over 1 year in the recent, placebo-controlled PACMAN-AMI trial.

Dr. Mehta pointed out that LDL reductions on PCSK9 inhibition, compared with the sham control, weren’t necessarily as impressive as might be expected from the major trials of long-term therapy with the drugs.

“You need longer [therapy] in order to see a difference in LDL levels when you use a PCSK9 inhibitor acutely. This is shown also on measures of infarct size.” There was no difference between treatment groups in infarct size as measured by levels of the MB fraction of creatine kinase, he reported.

“What this is telling us is that the acute use of a PCSK9 inhibitor did not modify the size or the severity of the baseline STEMI event.”

And EPIC-STEMI was too small and never intended to assess clinical outcomes; it was more about feasibility and what degree of LDL cholesterol lowering might be expected.

The trial was needed, Dr. Mehta said, because the PCSK9 inhibitors haven’t been extensively adopted into clinical practice and are not getting to the patients who could most benefit. One of the reasons for that is quite clear to him. “We are missing the high-risk patients because we are not treating them acutely,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview.

The strategy “has not yet been evaluated, and there have been barriers,” he observed. “Cost has been a barrier. Access to the drug has been a barrier. But in terms of the science, in terms of reducing cardiovascular events, this is a strategy that has to be tested.”

Mount Sinai Medical Center

The aggressive, early LDL cholesterol reduction strategy should be evaluated for its effect on long-term outcomes, “especially knowing that in the first 30 days to 6 months post STEMI there’s a tremendous uptick in ischemic events, including recurrent myocardial infarction,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said at a media briefing on EPIC-STEMI held before Dr. Mehta’s formal presentation.

The “fantastic reduction acutely” with a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of statins, “hopefully reducing inflammation” similarly to what’s been observed in past trials, “absolutely warrants” a STEMI clinical outcomes trial, said Dr. Mehran, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who isn’t connected with EPIC-STEMI.

If better post-discharge medication adherence is one of the acute strategy’s goals, it will be important to consider the potential influence of prescribing a periodically injected drug, proposed Eric A. Cohen, MD, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, at the press conference.

“Keep in mind that STEMI patients typically come to the hospital on zero medications and leave 2 days later on five medications,” Dr. Cohen observed. “I’m curious whether having one of those as a sub-Q injection every 2 weeks, and reducing the pill burden, will help or deter adherence to therapy. I think it’s worth studying.”

The trial originally included 97 patients undergoing PCI for STEMI who were randomly assigned to receive the PCSK9 inhibitor or a sham injection on top of high-intensity statins, without regard to LDL cholesterol levels. Randomization took place after diagnostic angiography but before PCI.

The analysis, however, subsequently excluded 29 patients who could not continue with the study, “mainly because of hospital research clinic closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the published report states.

That left 68 patients who had received at least one dose of PCSK9 inhibitor, alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously, or the sham injection, and had at least one blood draw for LDL cholesterol response which, Dr. Mehta said, still left adequate statistical power for the LDL cholesterol–based primary endpoint.

By 6 weeks, LDL cholesterol levels had fallen 72.9% in the active-therapy group and by 48.1% in the control group (P < .001). Also, 92.1% and 56.7% of patients, respectively (P = .002), had achieved levels below the 1.4 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) goal in the European guidelines, Dr. Mehta reported.

Levels fell more than 50% compared with baseline in 89.5% of alirocumab patients and 60% (P = .007) of controls, respectively.

There was no significant difference in rates of attaining LDL cholesterol levels below the 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) threshold specified in U.S. guidelines for very high-risk patients: 94.7% of alirocumab patients and 83.4% of controls (P = .26).
Nor did the groups differ significantly in natriuretic peptide levels, which reflect ventricular remodeling; or in 6-week change in the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

An open-label, randomized trial scheduled to launch before the end of 2022 will explore similarly early initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with standard lipid management, in an estimated 4,000 patients hospitalized with STEMI or non-STEMI.

The EVOLVE MI trial is looking at the monoclonal antibody evolocumab (Repatha) for its effect on the primary endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, arterial revascularization, or death from any cause over an expected 3-4 years.

EPIC-STEMI was supported in part by Sanofi. Dr. Mehta reported an unrestricted grant from Sanofi to Hamilton Health Sciences for the present study and consulting fees from Amgen, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving grant support from and holding research contracts with Abbott Vascular; and receiving fees for consulting, honoraria, or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Baylis. Dr. Mehran disclosed receiving grants or research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies; receiving consultant fee or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Janssen, Medtronic, Medscape/WebMD, and Cine-Med Research; and holding equity, stock, or stock options with Control Rad, Applied Therapeutics, and Elixir Medical.

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

It’s best to have patients on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy before discharge after an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), so why not start it right away – even in the cath lab – using some of the most potent LDL cholesterol–lowering agents available?

That was a main idea behind the randomized, sham-controlled EPIC-STEMI trial, in which STEMI patients were started on a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor immediately before direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on top of high-intensity statins.

Those in the trial getting the active agent showed a 22% drop in LDL cholesterol levels by 6 weeks, compared with the control group given a sham injection along with high-intensity statins. They were also more likely to meet LDL cholesterol goals specified in some guidelines, including reduction by at least 50%. And those outcomes were achieved regardless of baseline LDL cholesterol levels or prior statin use.

Adoption of the trial’s early, aggressive LDL cholesterolreduction strategy in practice “has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality” in such cases “by further reducing LDL beyond statins in a much greater number of high-risk patients than are currently being treated with these agents,” suggested principal investigator Shamir R. Mehta, MD, MSc, when presenting the findings at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Adherence to secondary prevention measures in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is much better if they are started before hospital discharge, explained Dr. Mehta, senior scientist with Population Health Research Institute and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But “as soon as the patient has left the hospital, it is much more difficult to get these therapies on board.”

Routine adoption of such aggressive in-hospital, lipid-lowering therapy for the vast population with ACS would likely mean far fewer deaths and cardiovascular events “across a broader patient population.”

EPIC-STEMI is among the first studies to explore the strategy. “I think that’s the point of the trial that we wanted to make, that we don’t yet have data on this. We’re treading very carefully with PCSK9 inhibitors, and it’s just inching forward in populations. And I think we need a bold trial to see whether or not this changes things.”

The PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent) was used in EPIC-STEMI, which was published in EuroIntervention, with Dr. Mehta as lead author, the same day as his presentation. The drug and its sham injection were given on top of either atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg.

Early initiation of statins in patients with acute STEMI has become standard, but there’s good evidence from intracoronary imaging studies suggesting that the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors might promote further stabilization of plaques that could potentially cause recurrent ischemic events.

Treatment with the injectable drugs plus statins led to significant coronary lesion regression in the GLAGOV trial of patients with stable coronary disease. And initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors with high-intensity statins soon after PCI for ACS improved atheroma shrinkage in non–infarct-related arteries over 1 year in the recent, placebo-controlled PACMAN-AMI trial.

Dr. Mehta pointed out that LDL reductions on PCSK9 inhibition, compared with the sham control, weren’t necessarily as impressive as might be expected from the major trials of long-term therapy with the drugs.

“You need longer [therapy] in order to see a difference in LDL levels when you use a PCSK9 inhibitor acutely. This is shown also on measures of infarct size.” There was no difference between treatment groups in infarct size as measured by levels of the MB fraction of creatine kinase, he reported.

“What this is telling us is that the acute use of a PCSK9 inhibitor did not modify the size or the severity of the baseline STEMI event.”

And EPIC-STEMI was too small and never intended to assess clinical outcomes; it was more about feasibility and what degree of LDL cholesterol lowering might be expected.

The trial was needed, Dr. Mehta said, because the PCSK9 inhibitors haven’t been extensively adopted into clinical practice and are not getting to the patients who could most benefit. One of the reasons for that is quite clear to him. “We are missing the high-risk patients because we are not treating them acutely,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview.

The strategy “has not yet been evaluated, and there have been barriers,” he observed. “Cost has been a barrier. Access to the drug has been a barrier. But in terms of the science, in terms of reducing cardiovascular events, this is a strategy that has to be tested.”

Mount Sinai Medical Center

The aggressive, early LDL cholesterol reduction strategy should be evaluated for its effect on long-term outcomes, “especially knowing that in the first 30 days to 6 months post STEMI there’s a tremendous uptick in ischemic events, including recurrent myocardial infarction,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said at a media briefing on EPIC-STEMI held before Dr. Mehta’s formal presentation.

The “fantastic reduction acutely” with a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of statins, “hopefully reducing inflammation” similarly to what’s been observed in past trials, “absolutely warrants” a STEMI clinical outcomes trial, said Dr. Mehran, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who isn’t connected with EPIC-STEMI.

If better post-discharge medication adherence is one of the acute strategy’s goals, it will be important to consider the potential influence of prescribing a periodically injected drug, proposed Eric A. Cohen, MD, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, at the press conference.

“Keep in mind that STEMI patients typically come to the hospital on zero medications and leave 2 days later on five medications,” Dr. Cohen observed. “I’m curious whether having one of those as a sub-Q injection every 2 weeks, and reducing the pill burden, will help or deter adherence to therapy. I think it’s worth studying.”

The trial originally included 97 patients undergoing PCI for STEMI who were randomly assigned to receive the PCSK9 inhibitor or a sham injection on top of high-intensity statins, without regard to LDL cholesterol levels. Randomization took place after diagnostic angiography but before PCI.

The analysis, however, subsequently excluded 29 patients who could not continue with the study, “mainly because of hospital research clinic closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the published report states.

That left 68 patients who had received at least one dose of PCSK9 inhibitor, alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously, or the sham injection, and had at least one blood draw for LDL cholesterol response which, Dr. Mehta said, still left adequate statistical power for the LDL cholesterol–based primary endpoint.

By 6 weeks, LDL cholesterol levels had fallen 72.9% in the active-therapy group and by 48.1% in the control group (P < .001). Also, 92.1% and 56.7% of patients, respectively (P = .002), had achieved levels below the 1.4 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) goal in the European guidelines, Dr. Mehta reported.

Levels fell more than 50% compared with baseline in 89.5% of alirocumab patients and 60% (P = .007) of controls, respectively.

There was no significant difference in rates of attaining LDL cholesterol levels below the 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) threshold specified in U.S. guidelines for very high-risk patients: 94.7% of alirocumab patients and 83.4% of controls (P = .26).
Nor did the groups differ significantly in natriuretic peptide levels, which reflect ventricular remodeling; or in 6-week change in the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

An open-label, randomized trial scheduled to launch before the end of 2022 will explore similarly early initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with standard lipid management, in an estimated 4,000 patients hospitalized with STEMI or non-STEMI.

The EVOLVE MI trial is looking at the monoclonal antibody evolocumab (Repatha) for its effect on the primary endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, arterial revascularization, or death from any cause over an expected 3-4 years.

EPIC-STEMI was supported in part by Sanofi. Dr. Mehta reported an unrestricted grant from Sanofi to Hamilton Health Sciences for the present study and consulting fees from Amgen, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving grant support from and holding research contracts with Abbott Vascular; and receiving fees for consulting, honoraria, or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Baylis. Dr. Mehran disclosed receiving grants or research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies; receiving consultant fee or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Janssen, Medtronic, Medscape/WebMD, and Cine-Med Research; and holding equity, stock, or stock options with Control Rad, Applied Therapeutics, and Elixir Medical.

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

It’s best to have patients on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy before discharge after an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), so why not start it right away – even in the cath lab – using some of the most potent LDL cholesterol–lowering agents available?

That was a main idea behind the randomized, sham-controlled EPIC-STEMI trial, in which STEMI patients were started on a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor immediately before direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on top of high-intensity statins.

Those in the trial getting the active agent showed a 22% drop in LDL cholesterol levels by 6 weeks, compared with the control group given a sham injection along with high-intensity statins. They were also more likely to meet LDL cholesterol goals specified in some guidelines, including reduction by at least 50%. And those outcomes were achieved regardless of baseline LDL cholesterol levels or prior statin use.

Adoption of the trial’s early, aggressive LDL cholesterolreduction strategy in practice “has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality” in such cases “by further reducing LDL beyond statins in a much greater number of high-risk patients than are currently being treated with these agents,” suggested principal investigator Shamir R. Mehta, MD, MSc, when presenting the findings at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Adherence to secondary prevention measures in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is much better if they are started before hospital discharge, explained Dr. Mehta, senior scientist with Population Health Research Institute and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But “as soon as the patient has left the hospital, it is much more difficult to get these therapies on board.”

Routine adoption of such aggressive in-hospital, lipid-lowering therapy for the vast population with ACS would likely mean far fewer deaths and cardiovascular events “across a broader patient population.”

EPIC-STEMI is among the first studies to explore the strategy. “I think that’s the point of the trial that we wanted to make, that we don’t yet have data on this. We’re treading very carefully with PCSK9 inhibitors, and it’s just inching forward in populations. And I think we need a bold trial to see whether or not this changes things.”

The PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent) was used in EPIC-STEMI, which was published in EuroIntervention, with Dr. Mehta as lead author, the same day as his presentation. The drug and its sham injection were given on top of either atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg.

Early initiation of statins in patients with acute STEMI has become standard, but there’s good evidence from intracoronary imaging studies suggesting that the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors might promote further stabilization of plaques that could potentially cause recurrent ischemic events.

Treatment with the injectable drugs plus statins led to significant coronary lesion regression in the GLAGOV trial of patients with stable coronary disease. And initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors with high-intensity statins soon after PCI for ACS improved atheroma shrinkage in non–infarct-related arteries over 1 year in the recent, placebo-controlled PACMAN-AMI trial.

Dr. Mehta pointed out that LDL reductions on PCSK9 inhibition, compared with the sham control, weren’t necessarily as impressive as might be expected from the major trials of long-term therapy with the drugs.

“You need longer [therapy] in order to see a difference in LDL levels when you use a PCSK9 inhibitor acutely. This is shown also on measures of infarct size.” There was no difference between treatment groups in infarct size as measured by levels of the MB fraction of creatine kinase, he reported.

“What this is telling us is that the acute use of a PCSK9 inhibitor did not modify the size or the severity of the baseline STEMI event.”

And EPIC-STEMI was too small and never intended to assess clinical outcomes; it was more about feasibility and what degree of LDL cholesterol lowering might be expected.

The trial was needed, Dr. Mehta said, because the PCSK9 inhibitors haven’t been extensively adopted into clinical practice and are not getting to the patients who could most benefit. One of the reasons for that is quite clear to him. “We are missing the high-risk patients because we are not treating them acutely,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview.

The strategy “has not yet been evaluated, and there have been barriers,” he observed. “Cost has been a barrier. Access to the drug has been a barrier. But in terms of the science, in terms of reducing cardiovascular events, this is a strategy that has to be tested.”

Mount Sinai Medical Center

The aggressive, early LDL cholesterol reduction strategy should be evaluated for its effect on long-term outcomes, “especially knowing that in the first 30 days to 6 months post STEMI there’s a tremendous uptick in ischemic events, including recurrent myocardial infarction,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said at a media briefing on EPIC-STEMI held before Dr. Mehta’s formal presentation.

The “fantastic reduction acutely” with a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of statins, “hopefully reducing inflammation” similarly to what’s been observed in past trials, “absolutely warrants” a STEMI clinical outcomes trial, said Dr. Mehran, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who isn’t connected with EPIC-STEMI.

If better post-discharge medication adherence is one of the acute strategy’s goals, it will be important to consider the potential influence of prescribing a periodically injected drug, proposed Eric A. Cohen, MD, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, at the press conference.

“Keep in mind that STEMI patients typically come to the hospital on zero medications and leave 2 days later on five medications,” Dr. Cohen observed. “I’m curious whether having one of those as a sub-Q injection every 2 weeks, and reducing the pill burden, will help or deter adherence to therapy. I think it’s worth studying.”

The trial originally included 97 patients undergoing PCI for STEMI who were randomly assigned to receive the PCSK9 inhibitor or a sham injection on top of high-intensity statins, without regard to LDL cholesterol levels. Randomization took place after diagnostic angiography but before PCI.

The analysis, however, subsequently excluded 29 patients who could not continue with the study, “mainly because of hospital research clinic closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the published report states.

That left 68 patients who had received at least one dose of PCSK9 inhibitor, alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously, or the sham injection, and had at least one blood draw for LDL cholesterol response which, Dr. Mehta said, still left adequate statistical power for the LDL cholesterol–based primary endpoint.

By 6 weeks, LDL cholesterol levels had fallen 72.9% in the active-therapy group and by 48.1% in the control group (P < .001). Also, 92.1% and 56.7% of patients, respectively (P = .002), had achieved levels below the 1.4 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) goal in the European guidelines, Dr. Mehta reported.

Levels fell more than 50% compared with baseline in 89.5% of alirocumab patients and 60% (P = .007) of controls, respectively.

There was no significant difference in rates of attaining LDL cholesterol levels below the 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) threshold specified in U.S. guidelines for very high-risk patients: 94.7% of alirocumab patients and 83.4% of controls (P = .26).
Nor did the groups differ significantly in natriuretic peptide levels, which reflect ventricular remodeling; or in 6-week change in the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

An open-label, randomized trial scheduled to launch before the end of 2022 will explore similarly early initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with standard lipid management, in an estimated 4,000 patients hospitalized with STEMI or non-STEMI.

The EVOLVE MI trial is looking at the monoclonal antibody evolocumab (Repatha) for its effect on the primary endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, arterial revascularization, or death from any cause over an expected 3-4 years.

EPIC-STEMI was supported in part by Sanofi. Dr. Mehta reported an unrestricted grant from Sanofi to Hamilton Health Sciences for the present study and consulting fees from Amgen, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving grant support from and holding research contracts with Abbott Vascular; and receiving fees for consulting, honoraria, or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Baylis. Dr. Mehran disclosed receiving grants or research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies; receiving consultant fee or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Janssen, Medtronic, Medscape/WebMD, and Cine-Med Research; and holding equity, stock, or stock options with Control Rad, Applied Therapeutics, and Elixir Medical.

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

Adolescents and young adults who undergo “top surgery” for gender dysphoria overwhelmingly report being satisfied with the procedure in the near-term, new research shows.

The results of the prospective cohort study, reported recently in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that the surgery can help facilitate gender congruence and comfort with body image for transmasculine and nonbinary youth. The authors, from Northwestern University, Chicago, said the findings may “help dispel misconceptions that gender-affirming treatment is experimental and support evidence-based practices of top surgery.”

Sumanas Jordan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of plastic surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, and a coauthor of the study, said the study was the first prospective, matched cohort analysis showing that chest surgery improves outcomes in this age group.

“We focused our study on chest dysphoria, the distress due to the presence of breasts, and gender congruence, the feeling of alignment between identity and physical characteristics,” Dr. Jordan said. “We will continue to study the effect of surgery in other areas of health, such as physical functioning and quality of life, and follow our patients longer term.”

As many as 9% of adolescents and young adults identify as transgender or nonbinary - a group underrepresented in the pediatric literature, Dr. Jordan’s group said. Chest dysphoria often is associated with psychosocial issues such as depression and anxiety.

“Dysphoria can lead to a range of negative physical and emotional consequences, such as avoidance of exercise and sports, harmful chest-binding practices, functional limitations, and suicidal ideation, said M. Brett Cooper, MD, MEd, assistant professor of pediatrics, and adolescent and young adult medicine, at UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s Health, Dallas. “These young people often bind for several hours a day to reduce the presence of their chest.”

The study

The Northwestern team recruited 81 patients with a mean age of 18.6 years whose sex at birth was assigned female. Patients were overwhelmingly White (89%), and the majority (59%) were transgender male, the remaining patients nonbinary.

The population sample included patients aged 13-24 who underwent top surgery from December 2019 to April 2021 and a matched control group of those who did not have surgery.

Outcomes measures were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

Thirty-six surgical patients and 34 of those in the control arm completed the outcomes measures. Surgical complications were minimal. Propensity analyses suggested an association between surgery and substantial improvements in scores on the following study endpoints:

• Chest dysphoria measure (–25.58 points, 95% confidence interval [CI], –29.18 to –21.98).
• Transgender congruence scale (7.78 points, 95%: CI, 6.06-9.50)
• Body image scale (–7.20 points, 95% CI, –11.68 to –2.72).

The patients who underwent top surgery reported significant improvements in scores of chest dysphoria, transgender congruence, and body image. The results for patients younger than age 18 paralleled those for older participants in the study.

While the results corroborate other studies showing that gender-affirming therapy improves mental health and quality of life among these young people, the researchers cautioned that some insurers require testosterone therapy for 1 year before their plans will cover the costs of gender-affirming surgery.

This may negatively affect those nonbinary patients who do not undergo hormone therapy,” the researchers wrote. They are currently collecting 1-year follow-up data to determine the long-term effects of top surgery on chest dysphoria, gender congruence, and body image.

As surgical patients progress through adult life, does the risk of regret increase? “We did not address regret in this short-term study,” Dr. Jordan said. “However, previous studies have shown very low levels of regret.”

An accompanying editorial concurred that top surgery is effective and medically necessary in this population of young people.

Calling the study “an important milestone in gender affirmation research,” Kishan M. Thadikonda, MD, and Katherine M. Gast, MD, MS, of the school of medicine and public health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it will be important to follow this young cohort to prove these benefits will endure as patients age.

They cautioned, however, that nonbinary patients represented just 13% of the patient total and only 8% of the surgical cohort. Nonbinary patients are not well understood as a patient population when it comes to gender-affirmation surgery and are often included in studies with transgender patients despite clear differences, they noted.
 

Current setbacks

According to Dr. Cooper, politics is already affecting care in Texas. “Due to the sociopolitical climate in my state in regard to gender-affirming care, I have also seen a few young people have their surgeries either canceled or postponed by their parents,” he said. “This has led to a worsening of mental health in these patients.”

Dr. Cooper stressed the need for more research on the perspective of non-White and socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.

“This study also highlights the disparity between patients who have commercial insurance versus those who are on Medicaid,” he said. “Medicaid plans often do not cover this, so those patients usually have to continue to suffer or pay for this surgery out of their own pocket.”

This study was supported by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Funding also came from the Plastic Surgery Foundation and American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgery. Dr. Jordan received grants from the Plastic Surgery Foundation during the study. One coauthor reported consultant fees from CVS Caremark for consulting outside the submitted work, and another reported grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Cooper disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments. The editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Adolescents and young adults who undergo “top surgery” for gender dysphoria overwhelmingly report being satisfied with the procedure in the near-term, new research shows.

The results of the prospective cohort study, reported recently in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that the surgery can help facilitate gender congruence and comfort with body image for transmasculine and nonbinary youth. The authors, from Northwestern University, Chicago, said the findings may “help dispel misconceptions that gender-affirming treatment is experimental and support evidence-based practices of top surgery.”

Sumanas Jordan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of plastic surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, and a coauthor of the study, said the study was the first prospective, matched cohort analysis showing that chest surgery improves outcomes in this age group.

“We focused our study on chest dysphoria, the distress due to the presence of breasts, and gender congruence, the feeling of alignment between identity and physical characteristics,” Dr. Jordan said. “We will continue to study the effect of surgery in other areas of health, such as physical functioning and quality of life, and follow our patients longer term.”

As many as 9% of adolescents and young adults identify as transgender or nonbinary - a group underrepresented in the pediatric literature, Dr. Jordan’s group said. Chest dysphoria often is associated with psychosocial issues such as depression and anxiety.

“Dysphoria can lead to a range of negative physical and emotional consequences, such as avoidance of exercise and sports, harmful chest-binding practices, functional limitations, and suicidal ideation, said M. Brett Cooper, MD, MEd, assistant professor of pediatrics, and adolescent and young adult medicine, at UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s Health, Dallas. “These young people often bind for several hours a day to reduce the presence of their chest.”

The study

The Northwestern team recruited 81 patients with a mean age of 18.6 years whose sex at birth was assigned female. Patients were overwhelmingly White (89%), and the majority (59%) were transgender male, the remaining patients nonbinary.

The population sample included patients aged 13-24 who underwent top surgery from December 2019 to April 2021 and a matched control group of those who did not have surgery.

Outcomes measures were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

Thirty-six surgical patients and 34 of those in the control arm completed the outcomes measures. Surgical complications were minimal. Propensity analyses suggested an association between surgery and substantial improvements in scores on the following study endpoints:

• Chest dysphoria measure (–25.58 points, 95% confidence interval [CI], –29.18 to –21.98).
• Transgender congruence scale (7.78 points, 95%: CI, 6.06-9.50)
• Body image scale (–7.20 points, 95% CI, –11.68 to –2.72).

The patients who underwent top surgery reported significant improvements in scores of chest dysphoria, transgender congruence, and body image. The results for patients younger than age 18 paralleled those for older participants in the study.

While the results corroborate other studies showing that gender-affirming therapy improves mental health and quality of life among these young people, the researchers cautioned that some insurers require testosterone therapy for 1 year before their plans will cover the costs of gender-affirming surgery.

This may negatively affect those nonbinary patients who do not undergo hormone therapy,” the researchers wrote. They are currently collecting 1-year follow-up data to determine the long-term effects of top surgery on chest dysphoria, gender congruence, and body image.

As surgical patients progress through adult life, does the risk of regret increase? “We did not address regret in this short-term study,” Dr. Jordan said. “However, previous studies have shown very low levels of regret.”

An accompanying editorial concurred that top surgery is effective and medically necessary in this population of young people.

Calling the study “an important milestone in gender affirmation research,” Kishan M. Thadikonda, MD, and Katherine M. Gast, MD, MS, of the school of medicine and public health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it will be important to follow this young cohort to prove these benefits will endure as patients age.

They cautioned, however, that nonbinary patients represented just 13% of the patient total and only 8% of the surgical cohort. Nonbinary patients are not well understood as a patient population when it comes to gender-affirmation surgery and are often included in studies with transgender patients despite clear differences, they noted.
 

Current setbacks

According to Dr. Cooper, politics is already affecting care in Texas. “Due to the sociopolitical climate in my state in regard to gender-affirming care, I have also seen a few young people have their surgeries either canceled or postponed by their parents,” he said. “This has led to a worsening of mental health in these patients.”

Dr. Cooper stressed the need for more research on the perspective of non-White and socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.

“This study also highlights the disparity between patients who have commercial insurance versus those who are on Medicaid,” he said. “Medicaid plans often do not cover this, so those patients usually have to continue to suffer or pay for this surgery out of their own pocket.”

This study was supported by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Funding also came from the Plastic Surgery Foundation and American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgery. Dr. Jordan received grants from the Plastic Surgery Foundation during the study. One coauthor reported consultant fees from CVS Caremark for consulting outside the submitted work, and another reported grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Cooper disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments. The editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Adolescents and young adults who undergo “top surgery” for gender dysphoria overwhelmingly report being satisfied with the procedure in the near-term, new research shows.

The results of the prospective cohort study, reported recently in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that the surgery can help facilitate gender congruence and comfort with body image for transmasculine and nonbinary youth. The authors, from Northwestern University, Chicago, said the findings may “help dispel misconceptions that gender-affirming treatment is experimental and support evidence-based practices of top surgery.”

Sumanas Jordan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of plastic surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, and a coauthor of the study, said the study was the first prospective, matched cohort analysis showing that chest surgery improves outcomes in this age group.

“We focused our study on chest dysphoria, the distress due to the presence of breasts, and gender congruence, the feeling of alignment between identity and physical characteristics,” Dr. Jordan said. “We will continue to study the effect of surgery in other areas of health, such as physical functioning and quality of life, and follow our patients longer term.”

As many as 9% of adolescents and young adults identify as transgender or nonbinary - a group underrepresented in the pediatric literature, Dr. Jordan’s group said. Chest dysphoria often is associated with psychosocial issues such as depression and anxiety.

“Dysphoria can lead to a range of negative physical and emotional consequences, such as avoidance of exercise and sports, harmful chest-binding practices, functional limitations, and suicidal ideation, said M. Brett Cooper, MD, MEd, assistant professor of pediatrics, and adolescent and young adult medicine, at UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s Health, Dallas. “These young people often bind for several hours a day to reduce the presence of their chest.”

The study

The Northwestern team recruited 81 patients with a mean age of 18.6 years whose sex at birth was assigned female. Patients were overwhelmingly White (89%), and the majority (59%) were transgender male, the remaining patients nonbinary.

The population sample included patients aged 13-24 who underwent top surgery from December 2019 to April 2021 and a matched control group of those who did not have surgery.

Outcomes measures were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

Thirty-six surgical patients and 34 of those in the control arm completed the outcomes measures. Surgical complications were minimal. Propensity analyses suggested an association between surgery and substantial improvements in scores on the following study endpoints:

• Chest dysphoria measure (–25.58 points, 95% confidence interval [CI], –29.18 to –21.98).
• Transgender congruence scale (7.78 points, 95%: CI, 6.06-9.50)
• Body image scale (–7.20 points, 95% CI, –11.68 to –2.72).

The patients who underwent top surgery reported significant improvements in scores of chest dysphoria, transgender congruence, and body image. The results for patients younger than age 18 paralleled those for older participants in the study.

While the results corroborate other studies showing that gender-affirming therapy improves mental health and quality of life among these young people, the researchers cautioned that some insurers require testosterone therapy for 1 year before their plans will cover the costs of gender-affirming surgery.

This may negatively affect those nonbinary patients who do not undergo hormone therapy,” the researchers wrote. They are currently collecting 1-year follow-up data to determine the long-term effects of top surgery on chest dysphoria, gender congruence, and body image.

As surgical patients progress through adult life, does the risk of regret increase? “We did not address regret in this short-term study,” Dr. Jordan said. “However, previous studies have shown very low levels of regret.”

An accompanying editorial concurred that top surgery is effective and medically necessary in this population of young people.

Calling the study “an important milestone in gender affirmation research,” Kishan M. Thadikonda, MD, and Katherine M. Gast, MD, MS, of the school of medicine and public health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it will be important to follow this young cohort to prove these benefits will endure as patients age.

They cautioned, however, that nonbinary patients represented just 13% of the patient total and only 8% of the surgical cohort. Nonbinary patients are not well understood as a patient population when it comes to gender-affirmation surgery and are often included in studies with transgender patients despite clear differences, they noted.
 

Current setbacks

According to Dr. Cooper, politics is already affecting care in Texas. “Due to the sociopolitical climate in my state in regard to gender-affirming care, I have also seen a few young people have their surgeries either canceled or postponed by their parents,” he said. “This has led to a worsening of mental health in these patients.”

Dr. Cooper stressed the need for more research on the perspective of non-White and socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.

“This study also highlights the disparity between patients who have commercial insurance versus those who are on Medicaid,” he said. “Medicaid plans often do not cover this, so those patients usually have to continue to suffer or pay for this surgery out of their own pocket.”

This study was supported by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Funding also came from the Plastic Surgery Foundation and American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgery. Dr. Jordan received grants from the Plastic Surgery Foundation during the study. One coauthor reported consultant fees from CVS Caremark for consulting outside the submitted work, and another reported grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Cooper disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments. The editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Adding community health workers (CHW) to a primary care setting was linked with improved type 2 diabetes management in a safety-net population, new research indicates.

The researchers, led by Robert L. Ferrer, MD, MPH, with the department of family and community medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, enrolled 986 people in a Latino, inner-city cohort in primary care in San Antonio. Patients had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and psychosocial risk factors. The study was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

The primary outcome measured was whether patients progressed through three stages of self-care: outreach (meeting face to face with a community health care worker), stabilization (collaborating with community health care workers to address life circumstances), and a third stage the researchers called “self-care generativity” (being able to manage blood sugar levels at home). The intervention lasted up to 12 weeks and had a 4-year follow-up.

Of participating patients, the researchers reported, 27% remained in outreach, 41% progressed to stabilization, 32% achieved self-care generativity status.

Coauthor Carlos Roberto Jaén, MD, PhD, also from the UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, said in an interview, “I don’t know any other intervention for diabetes that has 32% of participants having this kind of effect 4 years later.”

Dr. Jaén added that the study is unusual in that it had a 4-year follow-up and showed positive effects throughout that period, as most CHW studies have followed patients only up to one year.

The positive results over the 4 years after a short intervention “is a testimony of the power of intervention,” he said.

A1c drops with more progress in the intervention

The secondary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c and need for urgent care or emergency department or hospital care.

Study participants who worked with a CHW – regardless of which group they were in at the end of the intervention – collectively saw a 2% drop in blood sugar.

Over a similar time period to when the study was conducted, the researchers analyzed 27,000 A1c measurements of patients with type 2 diabetes in a comparator group. For these patients, who did not receive the study intervention but were part of the same practice as those who received the intervention, the researchers observed a reduction in A1c levels of 0.05%.

Among the study participants, for those who remained in outreach, hospital visits were 6% higher than for those who advanced to the level of self-care generativity, but this difference was not statistically significant. Hospital visits were 90% higher for those who achieved stabilization versus those who remained in outreach (P = .014) The average count of emergency department visits was 74% higher for those who achieved stabilization versus those who achieved self-care generativity, and 31% higher in the group remaining at outreach versus those who reached the highest level of self-care.
 

Advantages of community workers

In San Antonio, the authors noted, type 2 diabetes prevalence is high: 15.5% of its 1.6 million residents have been diagnosed with the disease.

The CHWs built trust with patients and helped them set goals, navigate the health system and connect to community resources. They worked with behavioral health clinicians, nurse care managers, and medical assistants toward population management.

“Community health workers’ detailed understanding of patients’ circumstances help to tailor their care rather than apply fixed interventions,” the authors wrote.

Ricardo Correa, MD, director of the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism fellowship program in the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview he was not surprised by the positive results.

He described the difference when CHWs get involved with type 2 diabetes care, particularly in the Latino community.

“They understand the culture, not just the language,” he said. “They have the trust of the community.”

It’s different when a provider not from the community tells a person with type 2 diabetes he or she needs to eat healthier or exercise more, he said.

The CHW can understand, for instance, that the nearest fresh market may be two towns away and open only on Saturdays and the parks are not safe for exercise outside at certain times of the day. Then they can help the patient find a sustainable solution.

“Community workers also won’t be looking at your immigration status,” something important to many in the Latino community, he explained.

Though this study looked at type 2 diabetes management, community health workers are also effective in other areas, he explained, such as increasing COVID-19 vaccinations, also do them being trustworthy and understanding.
 

Other study strengths

The group of people with type 2 diabetes they studied has the highest rates of poverty – “the poorest of the poor” – and the highest rates of diabetes-related amputations in San Antonio, Dr. Jaén said.

The intervention “is more focused on what people want to do, less so on the disease,” he explained. People are asked what goals they want to achieve and how the care team can help.

“It becomes an alliance between the community health worker and the patient,” he continued.

Others interested in implementing a program should know that building that relationship takes time and takes a broad multidisciplinary team working together, he said. “We would not necessarily see these effects in 6 months. You have to use a larger perspective.”

The researchers include with this study under the first-page tab “more online” access to tools, including resources for training, for others who want to implement such a program.

The study authors and Dr. Correa reported no relevant financial relationships.

Adding community health workers (CHW) to a primary care setting was linked with improved type 2 diabetes management in a safety-net population, new research indicates.

The researchers, led by Robert L. Ferrer, MD, MPH, with the department of family and community medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, enrolled 986 people in a Latino, inner-city cohort in primary care in San Antonio. Patients had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and psychosocial risk factors. The study was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

The primary outcome measured was whether patients progressed through three stages of self-care: outreach (meeting face to face with a community health care worker), stabilization (collaborating with community health care workers to address life circumstances), and a third stage the researchers called “self-care generativity” (being able to manage blood sugar levels at home). The intervention lasted up to 12 weeks and had a 4-year follow-up.

Of participating patients, the researchers reported, 27% remained in outreach, 41% progressed to stabilization, 32% achieved self-care generativity status.

Coauthor Carlos Roberto Jaén, MD, PhD, also from the UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, said in an interview, “I don’t know any other intervention for diabetes that has 32% of participants having this kind of effect 4 years later.”

Dr. Jaén added that the study is unusual in that it had a 4-year follow-up and showed positive effects throughout that period, as most CHW studies have followed patients only up to one year.

The positive results over the 4 years after a short intervention “is a testimony of the power of intervention,” he said.

A1c drops with more progress in the intervention

The secondary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c and need for urgent care or emergency department or hospital care.

Study participants who worked with a CHW – regardless of which group they were in at the end of the intervention – collectively saw a 2% drop in blood sugar.

Over a similar time period to when the study was conducted, the researchers analyzed 27,000 A1c measurements of patients with type 2 diabetes in a comparator group. For these patients, who did not receive the study intervention but were part of the same practice as those who received the intervention, the researchers observed a reduction in A1c levels of 0.05%.

Among the study participants, for those who remained in outreach, hospital visits were 6% higher than for those who advanced to the level of self-care generativity, but this difference was not statistically significant. Hospital visits were 90% higher for those who achieved stabilization versus those who remained in outreach (P = .014) The average count of emergency department visits was 74% higher for those who achieved stabilization versus those who achieved self-care generativity, and 31% higher in the group remaining at outreach versus those who reached the highest level of self-care.
 

Advantages of community workers

In San Antonio, the authors noted, type 2 diabetes prevalence is high: 15.5% of its 1.6 million residents have been diagnosed with the disease.

The CHWs built trust with patients and helped them set goals, navigate the health system and connect to community resources. They worked with behavioral health clinicians, nurse care managers, and medical assistants toward population management.

“Community health workers’ detailed understanding of patients’ circumstances help to tailor their care rather than apply fixed interventions,” the authors wrote.

Ricardo Correa, MD, director of the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism fellowship program in the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview he was not surprised by the positive results.

He described the difference when CHWs get involved with type 2 diabetes care, particularly in the Latino community.

“They understand the culture, not just the language,” he said. “They have the trust of the community.”

It’s different when a provider not from the community tells a person with type 2 diabetes he or she needs to eat healthier or exercise more, he said.

The CHW can understand, for instance, that the nearest fresh market may be two towns away and open only on Saturdays and the parks are not safe for exercise outside at certain times of the day. Then they can help the patient find a sustainable solution.

“Community workers also won’t be looking at your immigration status,” something important to many in the Latino community, he explained.

Though this study looked at type 2 diabetes management, community health workers are also effective in other areas, he explained, such as increasing COVID-19 vaccinations, also do them being trustworthy and understanding.
 

Other study strengths

The group of people with type 2 diabetes they studied has the highest rates of poverty – “the poorest of the poor” – and the highest rates of diabetes-related amputations in San Antonio, Dr. Jaén said.

The intervention “is more focused on what people want to do, less so on the disease,” he explained. People are asked what goals they want to achieve and how the care team can help.

“It becomes an alliance between the community health worker and the patient,” he continued.

Others interested in implementing a program should know that building that relationship takes time and takes a broad multidisciplinary team working together, he said. “We would not necessarily see these effects in 6 months. You have to use a larger perspective.”

The researchers include with this study under the first-page tab “more online” access to tools, including resources for training, for others who want to implement such a program.

The study authors and Dr. Correa reported no relevant financial relationships.

Adding community health workers (CHW) to a primary care setting was linked with improved type 2 diabetes management in a safety-net population, new research indicates.

The researchers, led by Robert L. Ferrer, MD, MPH, with the department of family and community medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, enrolled 986 people in a Latino, inner-city cohort in primary care in San Antonio. Patients had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and psychosocial risk factors. The study was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

The primary outcome measured was whether patients progressed through three stages of self-care: outreach (meeting face to face with a community health care worker), stabilization (collaborating with community health care workers to address life circumstances), and a third stage the researchers called “self-care generativity” (being able to manage blood sugar levels at home). The intervention lasted up to 12 weeks and had a 4-year follow-up.

Of participating patients, the researchers reported, 27% remained in outreach, 41% progressed to stabilization, 32% achieved self-care generativity status.

Coauthor Carlos Roberto Jaén, MD, PhD, also from the UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, said in an interview, “I don’t know any other intervention for diabetes that has 32% of participants having this kind of effect 4 years later.”

Dr. Jaén added that the study is unusual in that it had a 4-year follow-up and showed positive effects throughout that period, as most CHW studies have followed patients only up to one year.

The positive results over the 4 years after a short intervention “is a testimony of the power of intervention,” he said.

A1c drops with more progress in the intervention

The secondary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c and need for urgent care or emergency department or hospital care.

Study participants who worked with a CHW – regardless of which group they were in at the end of the intervention – collectively saw a 2% drop in blood sugar.

Over a similar time period to when the study was conducted, the researchers analyzed 27,000 A1c measurements of patients with type 2 diabetes in a comparator group. For these patients, who did not receive the study intervention but were part of the same practice as those who received the intervention, the researchers observed a reduction in A1c levels of 0.05%.

Among the study participants, for those who remained in outreach, hospital visits were 6% higher than for those who advanced to the level of self-care generativity, but this difference was not statistically significant. Hospital visits were 90% higher for those who achieved stabilization versus those who remained in outreach (P = .014) The average count of emergency department visits was 74% higher for those who achieved stabilization versus those who achieved self-care generativity, and 31% higher in the group remaining at outreach versus those who reached the highest level of self-care.
 

Advantages of community workers

In San Antonio, the authors noted, type 2 diabetes prevalence is high: 15.5% of its 1.6 million residents have been diagnosed with the disease.

The CHWs built trust with patients and helped them set goals, navigate the health system and connect to community resources. They worked with behavioral health clinicians, nurse care managers, and medical assistants toward population management.

“Community health workers’ detailed understanding of patients’ circumstances help to tailor their care rather than apply fixed interventions,” the authors wrote.

Ricardo Correa, MD, director of the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism fellowship program in the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview he was not surprised by the positive results.

He described the difference when CHWs get involved with type 2 diabetes care, particularly in the Latino community.

“They understand the culture, not just the language,” he said. “They have the trust of the community.”

It’s different when a provider not from the community tells a person with type 2 diabetes he or she needs to eat healthier or exercise more, he said.

The CHW can understand, for instance, that the nearest fresh market may be two towns away and open only on Saturdays and the parks are not safe for exercise outside at certain times of the day. Then they can help the patient find a sustainable solution.

“Community workers also won’t be looking at your immigration status,” something important to many in the Latino community, he explained.

Though this study looked at type 2 diabetes management, community health workers are also effective in other areas, he explained, such as increasing COVID-19 vaccinations, also do them being trustworthy and understanding.
 

Other study strengths

The group of people with type 2 diabetes they studied has the highest rates of poverty – “the poorest of the poor” – and the highest rates of diabetes-related amputations in San Antonio, Dr. Jaén said.

The intervention “is more focused on what people want to do, less so on the disease,” he explained. People are asked what goals they want to achieve and how the care team can help.

“It becomes an alliance between the community health worker and the patient,” he continued.

Others interested in implementing a program should know that building that relationship takes time and takes a broad multidisciplinary team working together, he said. “We would not necessarily see these effects in 6 months. You have to use a larger perspective.”

The researchers include with this study under the first-page tab “more online” access to tools, including resources for training, for others who want to implement such a program.

The study authors and Dr. Correa reported no relevant financial relationships.

From our first days as medical students, we are told that politics and religion are topics to be avoided with patients, but I disagree. Knowing more about our patients allows us to deliver better care. I propose that we consider adding politics and religion to our list of risk factors.

Politics and religion: New risk factors

The importance of politics and religion in the health of patients was clearly demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lives were needlessly lost because of stands taken based on religious beliefs or a political ideology. Families, friends, and the community at large were impacted.

Over my years of practice, I have found that while these are difficult topics to address, they should not be avoided. Studies have shown that open acknowledgement of religious beliefs can affect both clinical outcomes and well-being. Religion and spirituality are as much a part of our patient’s lives as the physical parameters that we measure. To neglect these significant aspects is to miss the very essence of the individual.

I made it a practice to ask patients about their religious beliefs, the extent to which religion shaped their life, and whether they were part of a church community. Knowing this allowed me to separate deep personal belief from stances based on personal freedom, misinformation, conspiracies, and politics.

I found that information about political leanings flowed naturally in discussions with patients as we trusted and respected each other over time. If I approached politics objectively and nonjudgmentally, it generally led to meaningful conversation. This helped me to understand the patient as an individual and informed my diagnosis and treatment plan.
 

Politics as stress

For example, on more than one occasion, a patient with atrial fibrillation presented with persistent elevated blood pressure and pulse rate despite adherence to the medical regimen that I had prescribed. After a few minutes of discussion, it was clear that excessive attention to political commentary on TV and social media raised their anxiety and anger level, putting them at greater risk for adverse outcomes. I advised that they refocus their leisure activities rather than change or increase medication.

It is disappointing to see how one of the great scientific advances of our lifetime, vaccination science, has been tarnished because of political or religious ideology and to see the extent to which these beliefs influenced COVID-19 vaccination compliance. As health care providers, we must promote information based on the scientific method. If patients challenge us and point out that recommendations based on science seem to change over time, we must explain that science evolves on the basis of new information objectively gathered. We need to find out what information the patient has gotten from the Internet, TV, or conspiracy theories and counter this with scientific facts. If we do not discuss religion and politics with our patients along with other risk factors, we may compromise our ability to give them the best advice and treatment.

Our patients have a right to their own spiritual and political ideology. If it differs dramatically from our own, this should not influence our commitment to care for them. But we have an obligation to challenge unfounded beliefs about medicine and counter with scientific facts. There are times when individual freedoms must be secondary to public health. Ultimately, it is up to the patient to choose, but they should not be given a “free pass” on the basis of religion or politics. If I know something is true and I would do it myself or recommend it for my family, I have an obligation to provide this recommendation to my patients.

Religious preference is included in medical records. It is not appropriate to add political preference, but the patient benefits if a long-term caregiver knows this information.

During the pandemic, for the first time in my 40+ years of practice, some patients questioned my recommendations and placed equal or greater weight on religion, politics, or conspiracy theories. This continues to be a very real struggle.

Knowing and understanding our patients as individuals is critical to providing optimum care and that means tackling these formally taboo topics. If having a potentially uncomfortable conversation with patients allows us to save one life, it is worth it.
 

Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no relevant conflict of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From our first days as medical students, we are told that politics and religion are topics to be avoided with patients, but I disagree. Knowing more about our patients allows us to deliver better care. I propose that we consider adding politics and religion to our list of risk factors.

Politics and religion: New risk factors

The importance of politics and religion in the health of patients was clearly demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lives were needlessly lost because of stands taken based on religious beliefs or a political ideology. Families, friends, and the community at large were impacted.

Over my years of practice, I have found that while these are difficult topics to address, they should not be avoided. Studies have shown that open acknowledgement of religious beliefs can affect both clinical outcomes and well-being. Religion and spirituality are as much a part of our patient’s lives as the physical parameters that we measure. To neglect these significant aspects is to miss the very essence of the individual.

I made it a practice to ask patients about their religious beliefs, the extent to which religion shaped their life, and whether they were part of a church community. Knowing this allowed me to separate deep personal belief from stances based on personal freedom, misinformation, conspiracies, and politics.

I found that information about political leanings flowed naturally in discussions with patients as we trusted and respected each other over time. If I approached politics objectively and nonjudgmentally, it generally led to meaningful conversation. This helped me to understand the patient as an individual and informed my diagnosis and treatment plan.
 

Politics as stress

For example, on more than one occasion, a patient with atrial fibrillation presented with persistent elevated blood pressure and pulse rate despite adherence to the medical regimen that I had prescribed. After a few minutes of discussion, it was clear that excessive attention to political commentary on TV and social media raised their anxiety and anger level, putting them at greater risk for adverse outcomes. I advised that they refocus their leisure activities rather than change or increase medication.

It is disappointing to see how one of the great scientific advances of our lifetime, vaccination science, has been tarnished because of political or religious ideology and to see the extent to which these beliefs influenced COVID-19 vaccination compliance. As health care providers, we must promote information based on the scientific method. If patients challenge us and point out that recommendations based on science seem to change over time, we must explain that science evolves on the basis of new information objectively gathered. We need to find out what information the patient has gotten from the Internet, TV, or conspiracy theories and counter this with scientific facts. If we do not discuss religion and politics with our patients along with other risk factors, we may compromise our ability to give them the best advice and treatment.

Our patients have a right to their own spiritual and political ideology. If it differs dramatically from our own, this should not influence our commitment to care for them. But we have an obligation to challenge unfounded beliefs about medicine and counter with scientific facts. There are times when individual freedoms must be secondary to public health. Ultimately, it is up to the patient to choose, but they should not be given a “free pass” on the basis of religion or politics. If I know something is true and I would do it myself or recommend it for my family, I have an obligation to provide this recommendation to my patients.

Religious preference is included in medical records. It is not appropriate to add political preference, but the patient benefits if a long-term caregiver knows this information.

During the pandemic, for the first time in my 40+ years of practice, some patients questioned my recommendations and placed equal or greater weight on religion, politics, or conspiracy theories. This continues to be a very real struggle.

Knowing and understanding our patients as individuals is critical to providing optimum care and that means tackling these formally taboo topics. If having a potentially uncomfortable conversation with patients allows us to save one life, it is worth it.
 

Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no relevant conflict of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From our first days as medical students, we are told that politics and religion are topics to be avoided with patients, but I disagree. Knowing more about our patients allows us to deliver better care. I propose that we consider adding politics and religion to our list of risk factors.

Politics and religion: New risk factors

The importance of politics and religion in the health of patients was clearly demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lives were needlessly lost because of stands taken based on religious beliefs or a political ideology. Families, friends, and the community at large were impacted.

Over my years of practice, I have found that while these are difficult topics to address, they should not be avoided. Studies have shown that open acknowledgement of religious beliefs can affect both clinical outcomes and well-being. Religion and spirituality are as much a part of our patient’s lives as the physical parameters that we measure. To neglect these significant aspects is to miss the very essence of the individual.

I made it a practice to ask patients about their religious beliefs, the extent to which religion shaped their life, and whether they were part of a church community. Knowing this allowed me to separate deep personal belief from stances based on personal freedom, misinformation, conspiracies, and politics.

I found that information about political leanings flowed naturally in discussions with patients as we trusted and respected each other over time. If I approached politics objectively and nonjudgmentally, it generally led to meaningful conversation. This helped me to understand the patient as an individual and informed my diagnosis and treatment plan.
 

Politics as stress

For example, on more than one occasion, a patient with atrial fibrillation presented with persistent elevated blood pressure and pulse rate despite adherence to the medical regimen that I had prescribed. After a few minutes of discussion, it was clear that excessive attention to political commentary on TV and social media raised their anxiety and anger level, putting them at greater risk for adverse outcomes. I advised that they refocus their leisure activities rather than change or increase medication.

It is disappointing to see how one of the great scientific advances of our lifetime, vaccination science, has been tarnished because of political or religious ideology and to see the extent to which these beliefs influenced COVID-19 vaccination compliance. As health care providers, we must promote information based on the scientific method. If patients challenge us and point out that recommendations based on science seem to change over time, we must explain that science evolves on the basis of new information objectively gathered. We need to find out what information the patient has gotten from the Internet, TV, or conspiracy theories and counter this with scientific facts. If we do not discuss religion and politics with our patients along with other risk factors, we may compromise our ability to give them the best advice and treatment.

Our patients have a right to their own spiritual and political ideology. If it differs dramatically from our own, this should not influence our commitment to care for them. But we have an obligation to challenge unfounded beliefs about medicine and counter with scientific facts. There are times when individual freedoms must be secondary to public health. Ultimately, it is up to the patient to choose, but they should not be given a “free pass” on the basis of religion or politics. If I know something is true and I would do it myself or recommend it for my family, I have an obligation to provide this recommendation to my patients.

Religious preference is included in medical records. It is not appropriate to add political preference, but the patient benefits if a long-term caregiver knows this information.

During the pandemic, for the first time in my 40+ years of practice, some patients questioned my recommendations and placed equal or greater weight on religion, politics, or conspiracy theories. This continues to be a very real struggle.

Knowing and understanding our patients as individuals is critical to providing optimum care and that means tackling these formally taboo topics. If having a potentially uncomfortable conversation with patients allows us to save one life, it is worth it.
 

Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no relevant conflict of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – There’s an intriguing plot twist in the story of SYMPLICITY HTN-3, the sham-controlled clinical trial that nearly put the kibosh on renal denervation (RDN) therapy as a promising approach to treatment-resistant hypertension (HTN).

The trial famously showed no benefit for systolic blood pressure (BP) from the invasive procedure at 6 months and 12 months, dampening enthusiasm for RDN in HTN for both physicians and industry. But it turns out that disappointment in the study may have been premature.

The procedure led to significant improvements in systolic BP, whether in-office or ambulatory, compared with a sham control procedure, in a new analysis that followed the trial’s patients out to 3 years. Those who underwent RDN also required less intense antihypertensive drug therapy.

“These findings support that durable blood pressure reductions with radiofrequency renal artery denervation, in the presence of lifestyle modification and maximal medical therapy, are safely achievable,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said in a Sept. 18 presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Bhatt, of Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, is lead author on the report published in The Lancet simultaneously with his presentation.

Strides in RDN technology and trial design since the neutral primary SYMPLICITY HTN-3 results were reported in 2014 have long since restored faith in the procedure, which is currently in advanced stages of clinical trials and expected to eventually make a mark on practice.

But Roxana Mehran, MD, not connected to SYMPLICITY HTN-3, expressed caution in interpreting the current analysis based on secondary endpoints and extended follow-up time.

And elsewhere at the TCT sessions, observers of the trial as well as Dr. Bhatt urged similar cautions interpreting “positive” secondary results from trials that were “negative” in their primary analyses.

Still, “I believe there is no question that we have now enough evidence to say that renal denervation on top of medications is probably something that we’re going to be seeing in the future,” Dr. Mehran, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.

Importantly, and a bit controversially, the RDN group in the 36-month SYMPLICITY HTN-3 analysis includes patients originally assigned to the sham control group who crossed over to receive RDN after the trial was unblinded. Their “control” BP responses were thereafter imputed by accepted statistical methodology that Dr. Bhatt characterized as “last observation carried forward.”

That’s another reason to be circumspect about the current results, observed Naomi Fisher, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s and Harvard Medical School, as a panelist following Dr. Bhatt’s formal presentation.

“With all the missing data and imputational calculations,” she said, “I think we have to apply caution in the interpretation.”

She also pointed out that blinding in the trial was lifted at 6 months, allowing patients to learn their treatment assignment, and potentially influencing subsequent changes to medications.  

They were prescribed, on average, about five antihypertensive meds, Dr. Fisher noted, and “that’s already a red flag. Patients taking that many medications generally aren’t universally taking them. There’s very high likelihood that there could have been variable adherence.”

Patients who learned they were in the sham control group, for example, could have “fallen off” taking their medications, potentially worsening outcomes and amplifying the apparent benefit of RDN. Such an effect, Dr. Fisher said, “could have contributed” to the study’s long-term results.

As previously reported, the single-blind SYMPLICITY HTN-3 had randomly assigned 535 patients to either RDN or a sham control procedure, 364 and 171 patients respectively, at 88 U.S. centers. The trial used the Symplicity Flex RDN radiofrequency ablation catheter (Medtronic).

For study entry, patients were required to have office systolic BP of at least 160 mm Hg and 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP of at least 135 mm Hg despite stable, maximally tolerated dosages of a diuretic plus at least two other antihypertensive agents.

Blinding was lifted at 6 months, per protocol, after which patients in the sham control group who still met the trial’s BP entry criteria were allowed to cross over and undergo RDN. The 101 controls who crossed over were combined with the original active-therapy cohort for the current analysis.

From baseline to 36 months, mean number of medication classes per patient maintained between 4.5 and 5, with no significant difference between groups at any point.

However, medication burden expressed as number of doses daily held steady between 9.7 to 10.2 for controls while the RDN group showed a steady decline from 10.2 to 8.4. Differences between RDN patients and controls were significant at both 24 months (P = .01) and 36 months (P = .005), Dr. Bhatt reported.

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

BOSTON – There’s an intriguing plot twist in the story of SYMPLICITY HTN-3, the sham-controlled clinical trial that nearly put the kibosh on renal denervation (RDN) therapy as a promising approach to treatment-resistant hypertension (HTN).

The trial famously showed no benefit for systolic blood pressure (BP) from the invasive procedure at 6 months and 12 months, dampening enthusiasm for RDN in HTN for both physicians and industry. But it turns out that disappointment in the study may have been premature.

The procedure led to significant improvements in systolic BP, whether in-office or ambulatory, compared with a sham control procedure, in a new analysis that followed the trial’s patients out to 3 years. Those who underwent RDN also required less intense antihypertensive drug therapy.

“These findings support that durable blood pressure reductions with radiofrequency renal artery denervation, in the presence of lifestyle modification and maximal medical therapy, are safely achievable,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said in a Sept. 18 presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Bhatt, of Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, is lead author on the report published in The Lancet simultaneously with his presentation.

Strides in RDN technology and trial design since the neutral primary SYMPLICITY HTN-3 results were reported in 2014 have long since restored faith in the procedure, which is currently in advanced stages of clinical trials and expected to eventually make a mark on practice.

But Roxana Mehran, MD, not connected to SYMPLICITY HTN-3, expressed caution in interpreting the current analysis based on secondary endpoints and extended follow-up time.

And elsewhere at the TCT sessions, observers of the trial as well as Dr. Bhatt urged similar cautions interpreting “positive” secondary results from trials that were “negative” in their primary analyses.

Still, “I believe there is no question that we have now enough evidence to say that renal denervation on top of medications is probably something that we’re going to be seeing in the future,” Dr. Mehran, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.

Importantly, and a bit controversially, the RDN group in the 36-month SYMPLICITY HTN-3 analysis includes patients originally assigned to the sham control group who crossed over to receive RDN after the trial was unblinded. Their “control” BP responses were thereafter imputed by accepted statistical methodology that Dr. Bhatt characterized as “last observation carried forward.”

That’s another reason to be circumspect about the current results, observed Naomi Fisher, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s and Harvard Medical School, as a panelist following Dr. Bhatt’s formal presentation.

“With all the missing data and imputational calculations,” she said, “I think we have to apply caution in the interpretation.”

She also pointed out that blinding in the trial was lifted at 6 months, allowing patients to learn their treatment assignment, and potentially influencing subsequent changes to medications.  

They were prescribed, on average, about five antihypertensive meds, Dr. Fisher noted, and “that’s already a red flag. Patients taking that many medications generally aren’t universally taking them. There’s very high likelihood that there could have been variable adherence.”

Patients who learned they were in the sham control group, for example, could have “fallen off” taking their medications, potentially worsening outcomes and amplifying the apparent benefit of RDN. Such an effect, Dr. Fisher said, “could have contributed” to the study’s long-term results.

As previously reported, the single-blind SYMPLICITY HTN-3 had randomly assigned 535 patients to either RDN or a sham control procedure, 364 and 171 patients respectively, at 88 U.S. centers. The trial used the Symplicity Flex RDN radiofrequency ablation catheter (Medtronic).

For study entry, patients were required to have office systolic BP of at least 160 mm Hg and 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP of at least 135 mm Hg despite stable, maximally tolerated dosages of a diuretic plus at least two other antihypertensive agents.

Blinding was lifted at 6 months, per protocol, after which patients in the sham control group who still met the trial’s BP entry criteria were allowed to cross over and undergo RDN. The 101 controls who crossed over were combined with the original active-therapy cohort for the current analysis.

From baseline to 36 months, mean number of medication classes per patient maintained between 4.5 and 5, with no significant difference between groups at any point.

However, medication burden expressed as number of doses daily held steady between 9.7 to 10.2 for controls while the RDN group showed a steady decline from 10.2 to 8.4. Differences between RDN patients and controls were significant at both 24 months (P = .01) and 36 months (P = .005), Dr. Bhatt reported.

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

BOSTON – There’s an intriguing plot twist in the story of SYMPLICITY HTN-3, the sham-controlled clinical trial that nearly put the kibosh on renal denervation (RDN) therapy as a promising approach to treatment-resistant hypertension (HTN).

The trial famously showed no benefit for systolic blood pressure (BP) from the invasive procedure at 6 months and 12 months, dampening enthusiasm for RDN in HTN for both physicians and industry. But it turns out that disappointment in the study may have been premature.

The procedure led to significant improvements in systolic BP, whether in-office or ambulatory, compared with a sham control procedure, in a new analysis that followed the trial’s patients out to 3 years. Those who underwent RDN also required less intense antihypertensive drug therapy.

“These findings support that durable blood pressure reductions with radiofrequency renal artery denervation, in the presence of lifestyle modification and maximal medical therapy, are safely achievable,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said in a Sept. 18 presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Bhatt, of Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, is lead author on the report published in The Lancet simultaneously with his presentation.

Strides in RDN technology and trial design since the neutral primary SYMPLICITY HTN-3 results were reported in 2014 have long since restored faith in the procedure, which is currently in advanced stages of clinical trials and expected to eventually make a mark on practice.

But Roxana Mehran, MD, not connected to SYMPLICITY HTN-3, expressed caution in interpreting the current analysis based on secondary endpoints and extended follow-up time.

And elsewhere at the TCT sessions, observers of the trial as well as Dr. Bhatt urged similar cautions interpreting “positive” secondary results from trials that were “negative” in their primary analyses.

Still, “I believe there is no question that we have now enough evidence to say that renal denervation on top of medications is probably something that we’re going to be seeing in the future,” Dr. Mehran, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.

Importantly, and a bit controversially, the RDN group in the 36-month SYMPLICITY HTN-3 analysis includes patients originally assigned to the sham control group who crossed over to receive RDN after the trial was unblinded. Their “control” BP responses were thereafter imputed by accepted statistical methodology that Dr. Bhatt characterized as “last observation carried forward.”

That’s another reason to be circumspect about the current results, observed Naomi Fisher, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s and Harvard Medical School, as a panelist following Dr. Bhatt’s formal presentation.

“With all the missing data and imputational calculations,” she said, “I think we have to apply caution in the interpretation.”

She also pointed out that blinding in the trial was lifted at 6 months, allowing patients to learn their treatment assignment, and potentially influencing subsequent changes to medications.  

They were prescribed, on average, about five antihypertensive meds, Dr. Fisher noted, and “that’s already a red flag. Patients taking that many medications generally aren’t universally taking them. There’s very high likelihood that there could have been variable adherence.”

Patients who learned they were in the sham control group, for example, could have “fallen off” taking their medications, potentially worsening outcomes and amplifying the apparent benefit of RDN. Such an effect, Dr. Fisher said, “could have contributed” to the study’s long-term results.

As previously reported, the single-blind SYMPLICITY HTN-3 had randomly assigned 535 patients to either RDN or a sham control procedure, 364 and 171 patients respectively, at 88 U.S. centers. The trial used the Symplicity Flex RDN radiofrequency ablation catheter (Medtronic).

For study entry, patients were required to have office systolic BP of at least 160 mm Hg and 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP of at least 135 mm Hg despite stable, maximally tolerated dosages of a diuretic plus at least two other antihypertensive agents.

Blinding was lifted at 6 months, per protocol, after which patients in the sham control group who still met the trial’s BP entry criteria were allowed to cross over and undergo RDN. The 101 controls who crossed over were combined with the original active-therapy cohort for the current analysis.

From baseline to 36 months, mean number of medication classes per patient maintained between 4.5 and 5, with no significant difference between groups at any point.

However, medication burden expressed as number of doses daily held steady between 9.7 to 10.2 for controls while the RDN group showed a steady decline from 10.2 to 8.4. Differences between RDN patients and controls were significant at both 24 months (P = .01) and 36 months (P = .005), Dr. Bhatt reported.

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

Doctors caring for patients taking steroids now have broader flexibility for which drugs to use to prevent osteoporosis associated with the medications.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released an updated guideline that advises treatment providers on when and how long to prescribe therapies that prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). Since the ACR last updated the guideline in 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has approved new treatments for osteoporosis, which are now included in the recommendations.

The new guideline also advises physicians that they may need to transition patients to a second treatment after concluding a first course – so-called sequential therapy – to better protect them against bone loss and fracture. It also offers detailed instructions for which drugs to use, when, and how long these medications should be administered for patients taking glucocorticoids over a long period of time.

The guideline’s inclusion of sequential therapy is significant and will be helpful to practicing clinicians, according to S.B. Tanner IV, MD, director of the Osteoporosis Clinic at Vanderbilt Health, Nashville, Tenn.

“For the first time, the ACR has offered guidance for starting and stopping treatments,” Dr. Tanner said. “This guideline supports awareness that osteoporosis is lifelong – something that will consistently need monitoring.”

An estimated 2.5 million Americans use glucocorticoids, according to a 2013 study in Arthritis Care & Research. Meanwhile, a 2019 study of residents in Denmark found 3% of people in the country were prescribed glucocorticoids annually. That study estimated 54% of glucocorticoid users were female and found the percentage of people taking glucocorticoids increased with age.

Glucocorticoids are used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions, from multiple sclerosis to lupus, and often are prescribed to transplant patients to prevent their immune systems from rejecting new organs. When taken over time these medications can cause osteoporosis, which in turn raises the risk of fracture.

More than 10% of patients who receive long-term glucocorticoid treatment are diagnosed with clinical fractures. In addition, even low-dose glucocorticoid therapy is associated with a bone loss rate of 10% per year for a patient.

Osteoporosis prevention

After stopping some prevention therapies for GIOP, a high risk of bone loss or fracture still persists, according to Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center for the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co-principal investigator of the new guideline.

“We wanted to be sure the need for sequential treatment is adequately communicated, including to patients who might not know they need to start a second medication,” Dr. Russell said.

Physicians and patients must be aware that when completing a course of one GIOP treatment, another drug for the condition should be started, as specified in the guideline.

“Early intervention can prevent glucocorticoid-induced fractures that can lead to substantial morbidity and increased mortality,” said Mary Beth Humphrey, MD, PhD, interim vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City and co-principal investigator of the ACR guideline.

Anyone can fracture

While age and other risk factors, including menopause, increase the risk of developing GIOP, bone loss can occur rapidly for a patient of any age.

Even a glucocorticoid dose as low as 2.5 mg will increase the risk of vertebral fractures, with some occurring as soon as 3 months after treatment starts, Dr. Humphrey said. For patients taking up to 7.5 mg daily, the risk of vertebral fracture doubles. Doses greater than 10 mg daily for more than 3 months raise the likelihood of a vertebral fracture by a factor of 14, and result in a 300% increase in the likelihood of hip fractures, according to Dr. Humphrey.

“When on steroids, even patients with high bone density scores can fracture,” Dr. Tanner said. “The 2017 guideline was almost too elaborate in its effort to calculate risk. The updated guideline acknowledges moderate risk and suggests that this is a group of patients who need treatment.”
 

Rank ordering adds flexibility

The updated ACR guideline no longer ranks medications based on patient fracture data, side effects, cost care, and whether the drug is provided through injection, pill, or IV.

All of the preventive treatments the panel recommends reduce the risk of steroid-induced bone loss, Dr. Humphrey said.

“We thought the 2017 guideline was too restrictive,” Dr. Russell said. “We’re giving physicians and patients more leeway to choose a medication based on their preferences.”

Patient preference of delivery mechanism – such as a desire for pills only – can now be weighed more heavily into drug treatment decisions.

“In the exam room, there are three dynamics going on: What the patient wants, what the doctor knows is most effective, and what the insurer will pay,” Dr. Tanner said. “Doing away with rank ordering opens up the conversation beyond cost to consider all those factors.”

The guideline team conducted a systematic literature review for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2017 guideline, and for questions on new pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential and combination therapy. The voting panel consisted of two patient representatives and 13 experts representing adult and pediatric rheumatology and endocrinology, nephrology, and gastroenterology.

A full manuscript has been submitted for publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research for peer review, and is expected to publish in early 2023.

Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Russell, the co-principal investigators for the guideline, and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tanner reported a current research grant funded by Amgen through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and being a paid course instructor for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry bone density course, Osteoporosis Essentials.

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

Doctors caring for patients taking steroids now have broader flexibility for which drugs to use to prevent osteoporosis associated with the medications.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released an updated guideline that advises treatment providers on when and how long to prescribe therapies that prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). Since the ACR last updated the guideline in 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has approved new treatments for osteoporosis, which are now included in the recommendations.

The new guideline also advises physicians that they may need to transition patients to a second treatment after concluding a first course – so-called sequential therapy – to better protect them against bone loss and fracture. It also offers detailed instructions for which drugs to use, when, and how long these medications should be administered for patients taking glucocorticoids over a long period of time.

The guideline’s inclusion of sequential therapy is significant and will be helpful to practicing clinicians, according to S.B. Tanner IV, MD, director of the Osteoporosis Clinic at Vanderbilt Health, Nashville, Tenn.

“For the first time, the ACR has offered guidance for starting and stopping treatments,” Dr. Tanner said. “This guideline supports awareness that osteoporosis is lifelong – something that will consistently need monitoring.”

An estimated 2.5 million Americans use glucocorticoids, according to a 2013 study in Arthritis Care & Research. Meanwhile, a 2019 study of residents in Denmark found 3% of people in the country were prescribed glucocorticoids annually. That study estimated 54% of glucocorticoid users were female and found the percentage of people taking glucocorticoids increased with age.

Glucocorticoids are used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions, from multiple sclerosis to lupus, and often are prescribed to transplant patients to prevent their immune systems from rejecting new organs. When taken over time these medications can cause osteoporosis, which in turn raises the risk of fracture.

More than 10% of patients who receive long-term glucocorticoid treatment are diagnosed with clinical fractures. In addition, even low-dose glucocorticoid therapy is associated with a bone loss rate of 10% per year for a patient.

Osteoporosis prevention

After stopping some prevention therapies for GIOP, a high risk of bone loss or fracture still persists, according to Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center for the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co-principal investigator of the new guideline.

“We wanted to be sure the need for sequential treatment is adequately communicated, including to patients who might not know they need to start a second medication,” Dr. Russell said.

Physicians and patients must be aware that when completing a course of one GIOP treatment, another drug for the condition should be started, as specified in the guideline.

“Early intervention can prevent glucocorticoid-induced fractures that can lead to substantial morbidity and increased mortality,” said Mary Beth Humphrey, MD, PhD, interim vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City and co-principal investigator of the ACR guideline.

Anyone can fracture

While age and other risk factors, including menopause, increase the risk of developing GIOP, bone loss can occur rapidly for a patient of any age.

Even a glucocorticoid dose as low as 2.5 mg will increase the risk of vertebral fractures, with some occurring as soon as 3 months after treatment starts, Dr. Humphrey said. For patients taking up to 7.5 mg daily, the risk of vertebral fracture doubles. Doses greater than 10 mg daily for more than 3 months raise the likelihood of a vertebral fracture by a factor of 14, and result in a 300% increase in the likelihood of hip fractures, according to Dr. Humphrey.

“When on steroids, even patients with high bone density scores can fracture,” Dr. Tanner said. “The 2017 guideline was almost too elaborate in its effort to calculate risk. The updated guideline acknowledges moderate risk and suggests that this is a group of patients who need treatment.”
 

Rank ordering adds flexibility

The updated ACR guideline no longer ranks medications based on patient fracture data, side effects, cost care, and whether the drug is provided through injection, pill, or IV.

All of the preventive treatments the panel recommends reduce the risk of steroid-induced bone loss, Dr. Humphrey said.

“We thought the 2017 guideline was too restrictive,” Dr. Russell said. “We’re giving physicians and patients more leeway to choose a medication based on their preferences.”

Patient preference of delivery mechanism – such as a desire for pills only – can now be weighed more heavily into drug treatment decisions.

“In the exam room, there are three dynamics going on: What the patient wants, what the doctor knows is most effective, and what the insurer will pay,” Dr. Tanner said. “Doing away with rank ordering opens up the conversation beyond cost to consider all those factors.”

The guideline team conducted a systematic literature review for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2017 guideline, and for questions on new pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential and combination therapy. The voting panel consisted of two patient representatives and 13 experts representing adult and pediatric rheumatology and endocrinology, nephrology, and gastroenterology.

A full manuscript has been submitted for publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research for peer review, and is expected to publish in early 2023.

Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Russell, the co-principal investigators for the guideline, and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tanner reported a current research grant funded by Amgen through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and being a paid course instructor for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry bone density course, Osteoporosis Essentials.

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

Doctors caring for patients taking steroids now have broader flexibility for which drugs to use to prevent osteoporosis associated with the medications.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released an updated guideline that advises treatment providers on when and how long to prescribe therapies that prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). Since the ACR last updated the guideline in 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has approved new treatments for osteoporosis, which are now included in the recommendations.

The new guideline also advises physicians that they may need to transition patients to a second treatment after concluding a first course – so-called sequential therapy – to better protect them against bone loss and fracture. It also offers detailed instructions for which drugs to use, when, and how long these medications should be administered for patients taking glucocorticoids over a long period of time.

The guideline’s inclusion of sequential therapy is significant and will be helpful to practicing clinicians, according to S.B. Tanner IV, MD, director of the Osteoporosis Clinic at Vanderbilt Health, Nashville, Tenn.

“For the first time, the ACR has offered guidance for starting and stopping treatments,” Dr. Tanner said. “This guideline supports awareness that osteoporosis is lifelong – something that will consistently need monitoring.”

An estimated 2.5 million Americans use glucocorticoids, according to a 2013 study in Arthritis Care & Research. Meanwhile, a 2019 study of residents in Denmark found 3% of people in the country were prescribed glucocorticoids annually. That study estimated 54% of glucocorticoid users were female and found the percentage of people taking glucocorticoids increased with age.

Glucocorticoids are used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions, from multiple sclerosis to lupus, and often are prescribed to transplant patients to prevent their immune systems from rejecting new organs. When taken over time these medications can cause osteoporosis, which in turn raises the risk of fracture.

More than 10% of patients who receive long-term glucocorticoid treatment are diagnosed with clinical fractures. In addition, even low-dose glucocorticoid therapy is associated with a bone loss rate of 10% per year for a patient.

Osteoporosis prevention

After stopping some prevention therapies for GIOP, a high risk of bone loss or fracture still persists, according to Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center for the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co-principal investigator of the new guideline.

“We wanted to be sure the need for sequential treatment is adequately communicated, including to patients who might not know they need to start a second medication,” Dr. Russell said.

Physicians and patients must be aware that when completing a course of one GIOP treatment, another drug for the condition should be started, as specified in the guideline.

“Early intervention can prevent glucocorticoid-induced fractures that can lead to substantial morbidity and increased mortality,” said Mary Beth Humphrey, MD, PhD, interim vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City and co-principal investigator of the ACR guideline.

Anyone can fracture

While age and other risk factors, including menopause, increase the risk of developing GIOP, bone loss can occur rapidly for a patient of any age.

Even a glucocorticoid dose as low as 2.5 mg will increase the risk of vertebral fractures, with some occurring as soon as 3 months after treatment starts, Dr. Humphrey said. For patients taking up to 7.5 mg daily, the risk of vertebral fracture doubles. Doses greater than 10 mg daily for more than 3 months raise the likelihood of a vertebral fracture by a factor of 14, and result in a 300% increase in the likelihood of hip fractures, according to Dr. Humphrey.

“When on steroids, even patients with high bone density scores can fracture,” Dr. Tanner said. “The 2017 guideline was almost too elaborate in its effort to calculate risk. The updated guideline acknowledges moderate risk and suggests that this is a group of patients who need treatment.”
 

Rank ordering adds flexibility

The updated ACR guideline no longer ranks medications based on patient fracture data, side effects, cost care, and whether the drug is provided through injection, pill, or IV.

All of the preventive treatments the panel recommends reduce the risk of steroid-induced bone loss, Dr. Humphrey said.

“We thought the 2017 guideline was too restrictive,” Dr. Russell said. “We’re giving physicians and patients more leeway to choose a medication based on their preferences.”

Patient preference of delivery mechanism – such as a desire for pills only – can now be weighed more heavily into drug treatment decisions.

“In the exam room, there are three dynamics going on: What the patient wants, what the doctor knows is most effective, and what the insurer will pay,” Dr. Tanner said. “Doing away with rank ordering opens up the conversation beyond cost to consider all those factors.”

The guideline team conducted a systematic literature review for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2017 guideline, and for questions on new pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential and combination therapy. The voting panel consisted of two patient representatives and 13 experts representing adult and pediatric rheumatology and endocrinology, nephrology, and gastroenterology.

A full manuscript has been submitted for publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research for peer review, and is expected to publish in early 2023.

Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Russell, the co-principal investigators for the guideline, and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tanner reported a current research grant funded by Amgen through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and being a paid course instructor for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry bone density course, Osteoporosis Essentials.

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

STOCKHOLM – When a clinician is unsure which of several equally viable drug options is best for a specific patient with type 2 diabetes, a rational approach is to run a serial trial with each one and then let each patient decide which agent works best for them.

That concept underwent successful testing in a recent trial with 457 patients with type 2 diabetes and already on treatment with metformin or metformin plus a sulfonylurea but needed further glycemic control. After cycling through 4-month trials (when tolerated) of canagliflozin (Invokana), pioglitazone (Actos), and sitagliptin (Januvia), 24% identified pioglitazone as the one that made them feel best, 33% favored sitagliptin, 37% said canagliflozin was tops, and 6% had no preference, Beverley Shields, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

After making these selections based on just their qualitative self-appraisals, researchers told patients about their hemoglobin A1c status on each of the three agents. It barely budged their choices, which became 25% calling pioglitazone best, 35% naming sitagliptin their preference, 38% opting for canagliflozin, with 2% having no preference.

Further analysis showed that the drug patients preferred was also the one that produced their lowest A1c level when compared with their 8 months on each of the two other agents tested, showing a link between lower A1c levels and improved well-being. The same relationship existed for the drug that caused the fewest adverse events for each patient.
 

Patients prefer feeling better

“Patients tended to prefer the drug that they ‘felt better’ on, with the lowest A1c level and the lowest number of side effects,” explained Dr. Shields, a medical statistician at the University of Exeter (England). Changes in weight appeared less important to patients for establishing a preference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This is for when there is equipoise” among drug options, Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “When you are unsure what to prescribe and there is no clear indication for one drug over another, try 4 months of one and 4 months of the other, then let the patient decide.

“Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug,” added Dr. Hattersley, who is also professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter.

“This has implications across medicine,” he added. “Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects.”

“I’m a bit worried by this approach, but it is something new” and worth considering, commented Drazenka P. Barlovic, MD, an endocrinologist at the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who chaired the session where Dr. Shields gave her report. “We should also have the courage to challenge metformin, as there is no longer an obligation to make it the first drug,” she said in an interview.

The study ran as a secondary analysis of the TriMaster study, which had the primary objective of identifying patient characteristics that could predict which of the three drug options tested worked best for certain patient subgroups. That analysis, presented at the 2021 EASD annual meeting, found that factors such as body mass index and kidney function significantly linked with the clinical responses patients had to each of the three tested agents.

The new analysis focused on 457 of the TriMaster participants who had provided preference information after they had tried all three agents. By design, none of the participants enrolled in the study had a contraindication for any of the tested drugs.

Patients quickly identify adverse effects

“We picked 4 months because it not too long, but long enough to see adverse effects, and to measure on-treatment A1c. Patients quickly identify their adverse events,” Dr. Shields said in an interview.

“This could come into practice now; there is no cost involved. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” Dr. Hattersley suggested. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.” He also stressed telling patients to return quicker than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug.

The findings have already changed Dr. Hattersley’s practice, and he believes it will catch on as he introduces it to local primary care physicians.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Shields, Dr. Hattersley, and Dr. Barlovic had no disclosures.






 

STOCKHOLM – When a clinician is unsure which of several equally viable drug options is best for a specific patient with type 2 diabetes, a rational approach is to run a serial trial with each one and then let each patient decide which agent works best for them.

That concept underwent successful testing in a recent trial with 457 patients with type 2 diabetes and already on treatment with metformin or metformin plus a sulfonylurea but needed further glycemic control. After cycling through 4-month trials (when tolerated) of canagliflozin (Invokana), pioglitazone (Actos), and sitagliptin (Januvia), 24% identified pioglitazone as the one that made them feel best, 33% favored sitagliptin, 37% said canagliflozin was tops, and 6% had no preference, Beverley Shields, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

After making these selections based on just their qualitative self-appraisals, researchers told patients about their hemoglobin A1c status on each of the three agents. It barely budged their choices, which became 25% calling pioglitazone best, 35% naming sitagliptin their preference, 38% opting for canagliflozin, with 2% having no preference.

Further analysis showed that the drug patients preferred was also the one that produced their lowest A1c level when compared with their 8 months on each of the two other agents tested, showing a link between lower A1c levels and improved well-being. The same relationship existed for the drug that caused the fewest adverse events for each patient.
 

Patients prefer feeling better

“Patients tended to prefer the drug that they ‘felt better’ on, with the lowest A1c level and the lowest number of side effects,” explained Dr. Shields, a medical statistician at the University of Exeter (England). Changes in weight appeared less important to patients for establishing a preference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This is for when there is equipoise” among drug options, Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “When you are unsure what to prescribe and there is no clear indication for one drug over another, try 4 months of one and 4 months of the other, then let the patient decide.

“Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug,” added Dr. Hattersley, who is also professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter.

“This has implications across medicine,” he added. “Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects.”

“I’m a bit worried by this approach, but it is something new” and worth considering, commented Drazenka P. Barlovic, MD, an endocrinologist at the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who chaired the session where Dr. Shields gave her report. “We should also have the courage to challenge metformin, as there is no longer an obligation to make it the first drug,” she said in an interview.

The study ran as a secondary analysis of the TriMaster study, which had the primary objective of identifying patient characteristics that could predict which of the three drug options tested worked best for certain patient subgroups. That analysis, presented at the 2021 EASD annual meeting, found that factors such as body mass index and kidney function significantly linked with the clinical responses patients had to each of the three tested agents.

The new analysis focused on 457 of the TriMaster participants who had provided preference information after they had tried all three agents. By design, none of the participants enrolled in the study had a contraindication for any of the tested drugs.

Patients quickly identify adverse effects

“We picked 4 months because it not too long, but long enough to see adverse effects, and to measure on-treatment A1c. Patients quickly identify their adverse events,” Dr. Shields said in an interview.

“This could come into practice now; there is no cost involved. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” Dr. Hattersley suggested. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.” He also stressed telling patients to return quicker than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug.

The findings have already changed Dr. Hattersley’s practice, and he believes it will catch on as he introduces it to local primary care physicians.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Shields, Dr. Hattersley, and Dr. Barlovic had no disclosures.






 

STOCKHOLM – When a clinician is unsure which of several equally viable drug options is best for a specific patient with type 2 diabetes, a rational approach is to run a serial trial with each one and then let each patient decide which agent works best for them.

That concept underwent successful testing in a recent trial with 457 patients with type 2 diabetes and already on treatment with metformin or metformin plus a sulfonylurea but needed further glycemic control. After cycling through 4-month trials (when tolerated) of canagliflozin (Invokana), pioglitazone (Actos), and sitagliptin (Januvia), 24% identified pioglitazone as the one that made them feel best, 33% favored sitagliptin, 37% said canagliflozin was tops, and 6% had no preference, Beverley Shields, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

After making these selections based on just their qualitative self-appraisals, researchers told patients about their hemoglobin A1c status on each of the three agents. It barely budged their choices, which became 25% calling pioglitazone best, 35% naming sitagliptin their preference, 38% opting for canagliflozin, with 2% having no preference.

Further analysis showed that the drug patients preferred was also the one that produced their lowest A1c level when compared with their 8 months on each of the two other agents tested, showing a link between lower A1c levels and improved well-being. The same relationship existed for the drug that caused the fewest adverse events for each patient.
 

Patients prefer feeling better

“Patients tended to prefer the drug that they ‘felt better’ on, with the lowest A1c level and the lowest number of side effects,” explained Dr. Shields, a medical statistician at the University of Exeter (England). Changes in weight appeared less important to patients for establishing a preference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This is for when there is equipoise” among drug options, Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “When you are unsure what to prescribe and there is no clear indication for one drug over another, try 4 months of one and 4 months of the other, then let the patient decide.

“Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug,” added Dr. Hattersley, who is also professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter.

“This has implications across medicine,” he added. “Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects.”

“I’m a bit worried by this approach, but it is something new” and worth considering, commented Drazenka P. Barlovic, MD, an endocrinologist at the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who chaired the session where Dr. Shields gave her report. “We should also have the courage to challenge metformin, as there is no longer an obligation to make it the first drug,” she said in an interview.

The study ran as a secondary analysis of the TriMaster study, which had the primary objective of identifying patient characteristics that could predict which of the three drug options tested worked best for certain patient subgroups. That analysis, presented at the 2021 EASD annual meeting, found that factors such as body mass index and kidney function significantly linked with the clinical responses patients had to each of the three tested agents.

The new analysis focused on 457 of the TriMaster participants who had provided preference information after they had tried all three agents. By design, none of the participants enrolled in the study had a contraindication for any of the tested drugs.

Patients quickly identify adverse effects

“We picked 4 months because it not too long, but long enough to see adverse effects, and to measure on-treatment A1c. Patients quickly identify their adverse events,” Dr. Shields said in an interview.

“This could come into practice now; there is no cost involved. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” Dr. Hattersley suggested. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.” He also stressed telling patients to return quicker than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug.

The findings have already changed Dr. Hattersley’s practice, and he believes it will catch on as he introduces it to local primary care physicians.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Shields, Dr. Hattersley, and Dr. Barlovic had no disclosures.






 

Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.

A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).

This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).

Dr. Fabrice Bonnet

“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
 

Findings challenged

“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.

“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.

“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.

“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”

Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
 

Assessing the risk of incident diabetes

Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.

“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.

Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.

“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.

To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.

For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.

In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.

The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.

The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).

And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
 

Risk increased with oophorectomy

“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).

“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.

“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
 

No increased risk for endometriosis

While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.

The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).

The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.

A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).

This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).

Dr. Fabrice Bonnet

“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
 

Findings challenged

“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.

“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.

“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.

“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”

Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
 

Assessing the risk of incident diabetes

Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.

“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.

Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.

“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.

To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.

For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.

In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.

The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.

The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).

And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
 

Risk increased with oophorectomy

“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).

“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.

“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
 

No increased risk for endometriosis

While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.

The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).

The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.

A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).

This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).

Dr. Fabrice Bonnet

“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
 

Findings challenged

“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.

“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.

“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.

“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”

Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
 

Assessing the risk of incident diabetes

Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.

“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.

Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.

“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.

To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.

For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.

In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.

The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.

The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).

And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
 

Risk increased with oophorectomy

“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).

“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.

“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
 

No increased risk for endometriosis

While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.

The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).

The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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