Clinical Endocrinology News

Final results of the SELECT trial have shown that the antiobesity drug semaglutide (Wegovy) produced a consistent reduction of around 20% versus placebo across major cardiovascular event endpoints over the approximately 3-year follow-up in patients with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

“This is a very exciting set of results. I think it is going to have a big impact on a large number of people,” lead investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, vice chair for research in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. 

“And from a scientific standpoint, these data show that we now have a new pathway or a new modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease that we can use in our patients who have overweight or obesity,” he added.

The trial involved 17,604 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and a body mass index of 27 kg/m² or above (mean BMI was 33), who were randomly assigned to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, given by subcutaneous injection once weekly at a gradually escalating dose up to 2.4 mg daily by week 16, or placebo. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 5.8% and 66.4% of patients met the criteria for prediabetes.

Patients lost a mean of 9.4% of body weight over the first 2 years with semaglutide versus 0.88% with placebo.

The primary cardiovascular endpoint – a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke – was reduced significantly, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90; P < .001).  

Death from cardiovascular causes, the first confirmatory secondary endpoint, showed a 15% reduction (HR, 0.85; P = .07) but this missed meeting criteria for statistical significance, and because of the hierarchical design of the trial, this meant that superiority testing was not performed for the remaining confirmatory secondary endpoints.

However, results showed reductions of around 20% for the heart failure composite endpoint and for all-cause mortality, with confidence intervals that did not cross 1.0, and directionally consistent effects were observed for all supportive secondary endpoints.

The HR for the heart failure composite endpoint was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96), and the HR for death from any cause was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). Nonfatal MI was reduced by 28% (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85).

The effects of semaglutide on the primary endpoint appeared to be similar across all prespecified subgroups.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment occurred in 16.6% in the semaglutide group, mostly gastrointestinal effects, and in 8.2% in the placebo group.

The trial results were presented by Dr. Lincoff at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association . They were also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Lincoff explained that there is a growing pandemic of overweight and obesity worldwide with clear evidence for years that these conditions increase the risk of cardiovascular events – and yet there has been no evidence, until now, that any pharmacologic or lifestyle therapy can reduce the increased risk conferred by overweight/obesity. 

“Patients in the trial were already taking standard of care therapies for other risk factors, such as hypertension and cholesterol, so this drug is giving additional benefit,” he said.

Dr. Lincoff believes these data will lead to a large increase in use of semaglutide, which is already available for the treatment of obesity and diabetes but can be difficult to get reimbursed.

“There is a lot of difficulty getting payors to pay for this drug for weight management. But with this new data from the SELECT trial there should be more willingness – at least in the population with a history of cardiovascular disease,” he commented. In diabetes, where it is already established that there is a cardiovascular risk reduction, it is easier to get these drugs reimbursed, he noted.

On the outcome data, Dr. Lincoff said he could not explain why cardiovascular death was not significantly reduced while all-cause mortality appeared to be cut more definitively.

“The cardiovascular death curves separated, then merged, then separated again. We don’t really know what is going on there. It may be that some deaths were misclassified. This trial was conducted through the COVID era and there may have been less information available on some patients because of that.”

But he added: “The all-cause mortality is more reassuring, as it doesn’t depend on classifying cause of death. Because of the design of the trial, we can’t formally claim a reduction in all-cause mortality, but the results do suggest there is an effect on this endpoint. And all the different types of cardiovascular events were similarly reduced in a consistent way, with similar effects seen across all subgroups. That is very reassuring.”
 

‘A new era’ for patients with obesity

Outside experts in the field were also impressed with the data.

Designated discussant of the trial at the AHA meeting, Ania Jastreboff, MD, associate professor medicine (endocrinology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the SELECT trial was “a turning point in the treatment of obesity and a call to action.

“Now is the time to treat obesity to improve health outcomes in people with cardiovascular disease,” she said.

Dr. Jastreboff noted that high BMI was estimated to have accounted for 4 million deaths worldwide in 2015, two-thirds of which were caused by cardiovascular disease. And she presented data showing that U.S. individuals meeting the SELECT criteria increased from 4.3 million in 2011-12 to 6.6 million in 2017-18.

She highlighted one major limitation of the SELECT trial: it enrolled a low number of women (38%) and ethnic minorities, with only 12% of the trial population being Black.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, director of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, described the SELECT results as “altogether a compelling package of data.”

“These results are even better than I had expected,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “There is a significant reduction in MI as I had anticipated, but additionally, there is a reduction in all-cause death. One can debate the statistics, though on a common-sense level, I think it is a real finding,” he noted.

“Given that MI, heart failure, nephropathy, and revascularization are all reduced, and even stroke is numerically lower, it makes sense that all-cause mortality would be reduced,” he said. “To me, apart from the GI side effects, this counts as a home run.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic’s Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, was similarly upbeat.

“These data prove what many of us have long suspected – that losing weight can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is great news for patients living with obesity. The obesity epidemic is out of control,” he added. “We need to have therapies that improve cardiovascular outcomes caused by obesity and this shows that semaglutide can do that. I think this is the beginning of a whole new era for patients with obesity.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the results of SELECT “both intriguing and compelling. Certainly, these findings lend further support to the use of semaglutide in a much broader secondary prevention population of individuals with obesity.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, director of the center for cardiometabolic disease prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, described the SELECT study as “a landmark trial which will change the practice of medicine in regard to how we treat obesity.”

He compared it with the landmark 4S trial in 1994, the first study in the area of cholesterol lowering therapy to show a clear benefit in reducing cardiovascular events and total mortality, and “began a drastic change in the way that physicians approached treatment of cholesterol.”

On the more robust reduction in all-cause death, compared with cardiovascular death,

Dr. Ballantyne pointed out: “Adjudication of dead or alive is something that everyone gets right. In contrast, the cause of death is sometime difficult to ascertain. Most importantly, the benefit on total mortality also provides assurance that this therapy does not have some adverse effect on increasing noncardiovascular deaths.”
 

Gastrointestinal adverse effects

On the side effects seen with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff reported that 10% of patients in the semaglutide group discontinued treatment because of GI side effects versus 2% in the placebo arm. He said this was “an expected issue.”

“GI effects, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, are known side effects of this whole class of drugs. The dose is slowly escalated to manage these adverse effects but there will be a proportion of patients who can’t tolerate it, although the vast majority are able to continue.”

He noted that, while dose reduction was allowed, of the patients who were still on the drug at 2 years, 77% were on the full dose, and 23% were on a reduced dose.

Dr. Lincoff pointed out that there were no serious adverse events with semaglutide. “This is the largest database by far now on the drug with a long-term follow up and we didn’t see the emergence of any new safety signals, which is very reassuring.”  

Dr. Nissen said the 16% rate of patients stopping the drug because of tolerability “is not a trivial number.”

He noted that the semaglutide dose used in this study was larger than that used in diabetes.

“They did this to try to achieve more weight loss but then you get more issues with tolerability. It’s a trade-off. If patients are experiencing adverse effects, the dose can be reduced, but then you will lose some effect. All the GLP-1 agonists have GI side effects – it’s part of the way that they work.”
 

Just weight loss or other actions too?

Speculating on the mechanism behind the reduction in cardiovascular events with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff does not think it is just weight reduction.

“The event curves start to diverge very soon after the start of the trial and yet the maximum weight loss doesn’t occur until about 65 weeks. I think something else is going on.”

In the paper, the researchers noted that GLP-1 agonists have been shown in animal studies to reduce inflammation, improve endothelial and left ventricular function, promote plaque stability, and decrease platelet aggregation. In this trial, semaglutide was associated with changes in multiple biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, including blood pressure, waist circumference, glycemic control, nephropathy, and levels of lipids and C-reactive protein.

Dr. Lincoff also pointed out that similar benefits were seen in patients with different levels of overweight, and in those who were prediabetic and those who weren’t, so benefit was not dependent on baseline BMI or glycated hemoglobin levels.

Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that other effects, as well as weight loss, could be involved. “The reduction in events with semaglutide appeared very early after initiation and far preceded the drug’s maximal effects on weight reduction. This might suggest that the drug offers other cardioprotective effects through pathways independent of weight loss. Certainly, semaglutide and the other GLP-1 agonists appear to attenuate inflammation, and the patterns of redistribution of adipose tissue may also be of interest.”

She also pointed out that the reduction in cardiovascular events appeared even earlier in this population of obese nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease than in prior studies of patients with diabetes. “It may suggest that there is particular benefit for this type of therapy in patients with an inflammatory milieu. I look forward to seeing further analyses to help tease apart the correlation between changes in inflammation, observed weight loss and cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Effect on clinical practice

With the majority of patients with cardiovascular disease being overweight, these results are obviously going to increase demand for semaglutide, but cost and availability are going to be an issue.

Dr. Bhatt noted that semaglutide is already very popular. “Weight loss drugs are somewhat different from other medications. I can spend 30 minutes trying to convince a patient to take a statin, but here people realize it’s going to cause weight loss and they come in asking for it even if they don’t strictly need it. I think it’s good to have cardiovascular outcome data because now at least for this population of patients, we have evidence to prescribe it.”

He agreed with Dr. Lincoff that these new data should encourage insurance companies to cover the drug, because in reducing cardiovascular events it should also improve downstream health care costs.

“It is providing clear cardiovascular and kidney benefit, so it is in the best interest to the health care system to fund this drug,” he said. “I hope insurers look at it rationally in this way, but they may also be frightened of the explosion of patients wanting this drug and now doctors wanting to prescribe it and how that would affect their shorter-term costs.”

Dr. Lincoff said it would not be easy to prioritize certain groups. “We couldn’t identify any subgroup who showed particularly more benefit than any others. But in the evolution of any therapy, there is a time period where it is in short supply and prohibitively expensive, then over time when there is some competition and pricing deals occur as more people are advocating for it, they become more available.”
 

‘A welcome treatment option’

In an editorial accompanying publication of the trial, Amit Khera, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, noted that baseline risk factors such as LDL cholesterol (78 mg/dL) and systolic blood pressure (131 mm Hg) were not ideal in the semaglutide group in this trial, and they suggest that the benefits of semaglutide may be attenuated when these measures are better controlled.

But given that more than 20 million people in the United States have coronary artery disease, with the majority having overweight or obesity and only approximately 30% having concomitant diabetes, they said that, even in the context of well-controlled risk factors and very low LDL cholesterol levels, the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in these persons is unacceptably high. “Thus, the SELECT trial provides a welcome treatment option that can be extended to millions of additional patients.”

However, the editorialists cautioned that semaglutide at current pricing comes with a significant cost to both patients and society, which makes this treatment inaccessible for many. 

They added that intensive lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery remain effective but underutilized options for obesity, and that the prevention of obesity before it develops should be the primary goal.

The SELECT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Lincoff is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Nissen are involved in a cardiovascular outcomes trial with a new investigational weight loss drug from Lilly. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Ballantyne are also investigators in a Novo Nordisk trial of a new anti-inflammatory drug.

Final results of the SELECT trial have shown that the antiobesity drug semaglutide (Wegovy) produced a consistent reduction of around 20% versus placebo across major cardiovascular event endpoints over the approximately 3-year follow-up in patients with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

“This is a very exciting set of results. I think it is going to have a big impact on a large number of people,” lead investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, vice chair for research in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. 

“And from a scientific standpoint, these data show that we now have a new pathway or a new modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease that we can use in our patients who have overweight or obesity,” he added.

The trial involved 17,604 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and a body mass index of 27 kg/m² or above (mean BMI was 33), who were randomly assigned to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, given by subcutaneous injection once weekly at a gradually escalating dose up to 2.4 mg daily by week 16, or placebo. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 5.8% and 66.4% of patients met the criteria for prediabetes.

Patients lost a mean of 9.4% of body weight over the first 2 years with semaglutide versus 0.88% with placebo.

The primary cardiovascular endpoint – a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke – was reduced significantly, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90; P < .001).  

Death from cardiovascular causes, the first confirmatory secondary endpoint, showed a 15% reduction (HR, 0.85; P = .07) but this missed meeting criteria for statistical significance, and because of the hierarchical design of the trial, this meant that superiority testing was not performed for the remaining confirmatory secondary endpoints.

However, results showed reductions of around 20% for the heart failure composite endpoint and for all-cause mortality, with confidence intervals that did not cross 1.0, and directionally consistent effects were observed for all supportive secondary endpoints.

The HR for the heart failure composite endpoint was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96), and the HR for death from any cause was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). Nonfatal MI was reduced by 28% (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85).

The effects of semaglutide on the primary endpoint appeared to be similar across all prespecified subgroups.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment occurred in 16.6% in the semaglutide group, mostly gastrointestinal effects, and in 8.2% in the placebo group.

The trial results were presented by Dr. Lincoff at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association . They were also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Lincoff explained that there is a growing pandemic of overweight and obesity worldwide with clear evidence for years that these conditions increase the risk of cardiovascular events – and yet there has been no evidence, until now, that any pharmacologic or lifestyle therapy can reduce the increased risk conferred by overweight/obesity. 

“Patients in the trial were already taking standard of care therapies for other risk factors, such as hypertension and cholesterol, so this drug is giving additional benefit,” he said.

Dr. Lincoff believes these data will lead to a large increase in use of semaglutide, which is already available for the treatment of obesity and diabetes but can be difficult to get reimbursed.

“There is a lot of difficulty getting payors to pay for this drug for weight management. But with this new data from the SELECT trial there should be more willingness – at least in the population with a history of cardiovascular disease,” he commented. In diabetes, where it is already established that there is a cardiovascular risk reduction, it is easier to get these drugs reimbursed, he noted.

On the outcome data, Dr. Lincoff said he could not explain why cardiovascular death was not significantly reduced while all-cause mortality appeared to be cut more definitively.

“The cardiovascular death curves separated, then merged, then separated again. We don’t really know what is going on there. It may be that some deaths were misclassified. This trial was conducted through the COVID era and there may have been less information available on some patients because of that.”

But he added: “The all-cause mortality is more reassuring, as it doesn’t depend on classifying cause of death. Because of the design of the trial, we can’t formally claim a reduction in all-cause mortality, but the results do suggest there is an effect on this endpoint. And all the different types of cardiovascular events were similarly reduced in a consistent way, with similar effects seen across all subgroups. That is very reassuring.”
 

‘A new era’ for patients with obesity

Outside experts in the field were also impressed with the data.

Designated discussant of the trial at the AHA meeting, Ania Jastreboff, MD, associate professor medicine (endocrinology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the SELECT trial was “a turning point in the treatment of obesity and a call to action.

“Now is the time to treat obesity to improve health outcomes in people with cardiovascular disease,” she said.

Dr. Jastreboff noted that high BMI was estimated to have accounted for 4 million deaths worldwide in 2015, two-thirds of which were caused by cardiovascular disease. And she presented data showing that U.S. individuals meeting the SELECT criteria increased from 4.3 million in 2011-12 to 6.6 million in 2017-18.

She highlighted one major limitation of the SELECT trial: it enrolled a low number of women (38%) and ethnic minorities, with only 12% of the trial population being Black.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, director of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, described the SELECT results as “altogether a compelling package of data.”

“These results are even better than I had expected,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “There is a significant reduction in MI as I had anticipated, but additionally, there is a reduction in all-cause death. One can debate the statistics, though on a common-sense level, I think it is a real finding,” he noted.

“Given that MI, heart failure, nephropathy, and revascularization are all reduced, and even stroke is numerically lower, it makes sense that all-cause mortality would be reduced,” he said. “To me, apart from the GI side effects, this counts as a home run.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic’s Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, was similarly upbeat.

“These data prove what many of us have long suspected – that losing weight can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is great news for patients living with obesity. The obesity epidemic is out of control,” he added. “We need to have therapies that improve cardiovascular outcomes caused by obesity and this shows that semaglutide can do that. I think this is the beginning of a whole new era for patients with obesity.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the results of SELECT “both intriguing and compelling. Certainly, these findings lend further support to the use of semaglutide in a much broader secondary prevention population of individuals with obesity.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, director of the center for cardiometabolic disease prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, described the SELECT study as “a landmark trial which will change the practice of medicine in regard to how we treat obesity.”

He compared it with the landmark 4S trial in 1994, the first study in the area of cholesterol lowering therapy to show a clear benefit in reducing cardiovascular events and total mortality, and “began a drastic change in the way that physicians approached treatment of cholesterol.”

On the more robust reduction in all-cause death, compared with cardiovascular death,

Dr. Ballantyne pointed out: “Adjudication of dead or alive is something that everyone gets right. In contrast, the cause of death is sometime difficult to ascertain. Most importantly, the benefit on total mortality also provides assurance that this therapy does not have some adverse effect on increasing noncardiovascular deaths.”
 

Gastrointestinal adverse effects

On the side effects seen with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff reported that 10% of patients in the semaglutide group discontinued treatment because of GI side effects versus 2% in the placebo arm. He said this was “an expected issue.”

“GI effects, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, are known side effects of this whole class of drugs. The dose is slowly escalated to manage these adverse effects but there will be a proportion of patients who can’t tolerate it, although the vast majority are able to continue.”

He noted that, while dose reduction was allowed, of the patients who were still on the drug at 2 years, 77% were on the full dose, and 23% were on a reduced dose.

Dr. Lincoff pointed out that there were no serious adverse events with semaglutide. “This is the largest database by far now on the drug with a long-term follow up and we didn’t see the emergence of any new safety signals, which is very reassuring.”  

Dr. Nissen said the 16% rate of patients stopping the drug because of tolerability “is not a trivial number.”

He noted that the semaglutide dose used in this study was larger than that used in diabetes.

“They did this to try to achieve more weight loss but then you get more issues with tolerability. It’s a trade-off. If patients are experiencing adverse effects, the dose can be reduced, but then you will lose some effect. All the GLP-1 agonists have GI side effects – it’s part of the way that they work.”
 

Just weight loss or other actions too?

Speculating on the mechanism behind the reduction in cardiovascular events with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff does not think it is just weight reduction.

“The event curves start to diverge very soon after the start of the trial and yet the maximum weight loss doesn’t occur until about 65 weeks. I think something else is going on.”

In the paper, the researchers noted that GLP-1 agonists have been shown in animal studies to reduce inflammation, improve endothelial and left ventricular function, promote plaque stability, and decrease platelet aggregation. In this trial, semaglutide was associated with changes in multiple biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, including blood pressure, waist circumference, glycemic control, nephropathy, and levels of lipids and C-reactive protein.

Dr. Lincoff also pointed out that similar benefits were seen in patients with different levels of overweight, and in those who were prediabetic and those who weren’t, so benefit was not dependent on baseline BMI or glycated hemoglobin levels.

Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that other effects, as well as weight loss, could be involved. “The reduction in events with semaglutide appeared very early after initiation and far preceded the drug’s maximal effects on weight reduction. This might suggest that the drug offers other cardioprotective effects through pathways independent of weight loss. Certainly, semaglutide and the other GLP-1 agonists appear to attenuate inflammation, and the patterns of redistribution of adipose tissue may also be of interest.”

She also pointed out that the reduction in cardiovascular events appeared even earlier in this population of obese nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease than in prior studies of patients with diabetes. “It may suggest that there is particular benefit for this type of therapy in patients with an inflammatory milieu. I look forward to seeing further analyses to help tease apart the correlation between changes in inflammation, observed weight loss and cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Effect on clinical practice

With the majority of patients with cardiovascular disease being overweight, these results are obviously going to increase demand for semaglutide, but cost and availability are going to be an issue.

Dr. Bhatt noted that semaglutide is already very popular. “Weight loss drugs are somewhat different from other medications. I can spend 30 minutes trying to convince a patient to take a statin, but here people realize it’s going to cause weight loss and they come in asking for it even if they don’t strictly need it. I think it’s good to have cardiovascular outcome data because now at least for this population of patients, we have evidence to prescribe it.”

He agreed with Dr. Lincoff that these new data should encourage insurance companies to cover the drug, because in reducing cardiovascular events it should also improve downstream health care costs.

“It is providing clear cardiovascular and kidney benefit, so it is in the best interest to the health care system to fund this drug,” he said. “I hope insurers look at it rationally in this way, but they may also be frightened of the explosion of patients wanting this drug and now doctors wanting to prescribe it and how that would affect their shorter-term costs.”

Dr. Lincoff said it would not be easy to prioritize certain groups. “We couldn’t identify any subgroup who showed particularly more benefit than any others. But in the evolution of any therapy, there is a time period where it is in short supply and prohibitively expensive, then over time when there is some competition and pricing deals occur as more people are advocating for it, they become more available.”
 

‘A welcome treatment option’

In an editorial accompanying publication of the trial, Amit Khera, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, noted that baseline risk factors such as LDL cholesterol (78 mg/dL) and systolic blood pressure (131 mm Hg) were not ideal in the semaglutide group in this trial, and they suggest that the benefits of semaglutide may be attenuated when these measures are better controlled.

But given that more than 20 million people in the United States have coronary artery disease, with the majority having overweight or obesity and only approximately 30% having concomitant diabetes, they said that, even in the context of well-controlled risk factors and very low LDL cholesterol levels, the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in these persons is unacceptably high. “Thus, the SELECT trial provides a welcome treatment option that can be extended to millions of additional patients.”

However, the editorialists cautioned that semaglutide at current pricing comes with a significant cost to both patients and society, which makes this treatment inaccessible for many. 

They added that intensive lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery remain effective but underutilized options for obesity, and that the prevention of obesity before it develops should be the primary goal.

The SELECT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Lincoff is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Nissen are involved in a cardiovascular outcomes trial with a new investigational weight loss drug from Lilly. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Ballantyne are also investigators in a Novo Nordisk trial of a new anti-inflammatory drug.

Final results of the SELECT trial have shown that the antiobesity drug semaglutide (Wegovy) produced a consistent reduction of around 20% versus placebo across major cardiovascular event endpoints over the approximately 3-year follow-up in patients with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

“This is a very exciting set of results. I think it is going to have a big impact on a large number of people,” lead investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, vice chair for research in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. 

“And from a scientific standpoint, these data show that we now have a new pathway or a new modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease that we can use in our patients who have overweight or obesity,” he added.

The trial involved 17,604 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and a body mass index of 27 kg/m² or above (mean BMI was 33), who were randomly assigned to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, given by subcutaneous injection once weekly at a gradually escalating dose up to 2.4 mg daily by week 16, or placebo. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 5.8% and 66.4% of patients met the criteria for prediabetes.

Patients lost a mean of 9.4% of body weight over the first 2 years with semaglutide versus 0.88% with placebo.

The primary cardiovascular endpoint – a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke – was reduced significantly, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90; P < .001).  

Death from cardiovascular causes, the first confirmatory secondary endpoint, showed a 15% reduction (HR, 0.85; P = .07) but this missed meeting criteria for statistical significance, and because of the hierarchical design of the trial, this meant that superiority testing was not performed for the remaining confirmatory secondary endpoints.

However, results showed reductions of around 20% for the heart failure composite endpoint and for all-cause mortality, with confidence intervals that did not cross 1.0, and directionally consistent effects were observed for all supportive secondary endpoints.

The HR for the heart failure composite endpoint was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96), and the HR for death from any cause was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). Nonfatal MI was reduced by 28% (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85).

The effects of semaglutide on the primary endpoint appeared to be similar across all prespecified subgroups.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment occurred in 16.6% in the semaglutide group, mostly gastrointestinal effects, and in 8.2% in the placebo group.

The trial results were presented by Dr. Lincoff at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association . They were also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Lincoff explained that there is a growing pandemic of overweight and obesity worldwide with clear evidence for years that these conditions increase the risk of cardiovascular events – and yet there has been no evidence, until now, that any pharmacologic or lifestyle therapy can reduce the increased risk conferred by overweight/obesity. 

“Patients in the trial were already taking standard of care therapies for other risk factors, such as hypertension and cholesterol, so this drug is giving additional benefit,” he said.

Dr. Lincoff believes these data will lead to a large increase in use of semaglutide, which is already available for the treatment of obesity and diabetes but can be difficult to get reimbursed.

“There is a lot of difficulty getting payors to pay for this drug for weight management. But with this new data from the SELECT trial there should be more willingness – at least in the population with a history of cardiovascular disease,” he commented. In diabetes, where it is already established that there is a cardiovascular risk reduction, it is easier to get these drugs reimbursed, he noted.

On the outcome data, Dr. Lincoff said he could not explain why cardiovascular death was not significantly reduced while all-cause mortality appeared to be cut more definitively.

“The cardiovascular death curves separated, then merged, then separated again. We don’t really know what is going on there. It may be that some deaths were misclassified. This trial was conducted through the COVID era and there may have been less information available on some patients because of that.”

But he added: “The all-cause mortality is more reassuring, as it doesn’t depend on classifying cause of death. Because of the design of the trial, we can’t formally claim a reduction in all-cause mortality, but the results do suggest there is an effect on this endpoint. And all the different types of cardiovascular events were similarly reduced in a consistent way, with similar effects seen across all subgroups. That is very reassuring.”
 

‘A new era’ for patients with obesity

Outside experts in the field were also impressed with the data.

Designated discussant of the trial at the AHA meeting, Ania Jastreboff, MD, associate professor medicine (endocrinology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the SELECT trial was “a turning point in the treatment of obesity and a call to action.

“Now is the time to treat obesity to improve health outcomes in people with cardiovascular disease,” she said.

Dr. Jastreboff noted that high BMI was estimated to have accounted for 4 million deaths worldwide in 2015, two-thirds of which were caused by cardiovascular disease. And she presented data showing that U.S. individuals meeting the SELECT criteria increased from 4.3 million in 2011-12 to 6.6 million in 2017-18.

She highlighted one major limitation of the SELECT trial: it enrolled a low number of women (38%) and ethnic minorities, with only 12% of the trial population being Black.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, director of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, described the SELECT results as “altogether a compelling package of data.”

“These results are even better than I had expected,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “There is a significant reduction in MI as I had anticipated, but additionally, there is a reduction in all-cause death. One can debate the statistics, though on a common-sense level, I think it is a real finding,” he noted.

“Given that MI, heart failure, nephropathy, and revascularization are all reduced, and even stroke is numerically lower, it makes sense that all-cause mortality would be reduced,” he said. “To me, apart from the GI side effects, this counts as a home run.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic’s Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, was similarly upbeat.

“These data prove what many of us have long suspected – that losing weight can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is great news for patients living with obesity. The obesity epidemic is out of control,” he added. “We need to have therapies that improve cardiovascular outcomes caused by obesity and this shows that semaglutide can do that. I think this is the beginning of a whole new era for patients with obesity.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the results of SELECT “both intriguing and compelling. Certainly, these findings lend further support to the use of semaglutide in a much broader secondary prevention population of individuals with obesity.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, director of the center for cardiometabolic disease prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, described the SELECT study as “a landmark trial which will change the practice of medicine in regard to how we treat obesity.”

He compared it with the landmark 4S trial in 1994, the first study in the area of cholesterol lowering therapy to show a clear benefit in reducing cardiovascular events and total mortality, and “began a drastic change in the way that physicians approached treatment of cholesterol.”

On the more robust reduction in all-cause death, compared with cardiovascular death,

Dr. Ballantyne pointed out: “Adjudication of dead or alive is something that everyone gets right. In contrast, the cause of death is sometime difficult to ascertain. Most importantly, the benefit on total mortality also provides assurance that this therapy does not have some adverse effect on increasing noncardiovascular deaths.”
 

Gastrointestinal adverse effects

On the side effects seen with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff reported that 10% of patients in the semaglutide group discontinued treatment because of GI side effects versus 2% in the placebo arm. He said this was “an expected issue.”

“GI effects, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, are known side effects of this whole class of drugs. The dose is slowly escalated to manage these adverse effects but there will be a proportion of patients who can’t tolerate it, although the vast majority are able to continue.”

He noted that, while dose reduction was allowed, of the patients who were still on the drug at 2 years, 77% were on the full dose, and 23% were on a reduced dose.

Dr. Lincoff pointed out that there were no serious adverse events with semaglutide. “This is the largest database by far now on the drug with a long-term follow up and we didn’t see the emergence of any new safety signals, which is very reassuring.”  

Dr. Nissen said the 16% rate of patients stopping the drug because of tolerability “is not a trivial number.”

He noted that the semaglutide dose used in this study was larger than that used in diabetes.

“They did this to try to achieve more weight loss but then you get more issues with tolerability. It’s a trade-off. If patients are experiencing adverse effects, the dose can be reduced, but then you will lose some effect. All the GLP-1 agonists have GI side effects – it’s part of the way that they work.”
 

Just weight loss or other actions too?

Speculating on the mechanism behind the reduction in cardiovascular events with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff does not think it is just weight reduction.

“The event curves start to diverge very soon after the start of the trial and yet the maximum weight loss doesn’t occur until about 65 weeks. I think something else is going on.”

In the paper, the researchers noted that GLP-1 agonists have been shown in animal studies to reduce inflammation, improve endothelial and left ventricular function, promote plaque stability, and decrease platelet aggregation. In this trial, semaglutide was associated with changes in multiple biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, including blood pressure, waist circumference, glycemic control, nephropathy, and levels of lipids and C-reactive protein.

Dr. Lincoff also pointed out that similar benefits were seen in patients with different levels of overweight, and in those who were prediabetic and those who weren’t, so benefit was not dependent on baseline BMI or glycated hemoglobin levels.

Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that other effects, as well as weight loss, could be involved. “The reduction in events with semaglutide appeared very early after initiation and far preceded the drug’s maximal effects on weight reduction. This might suggest that the drug offers other cardioprotective effects through pathways independent of weight loss. Certainly, semaglutide and the other GLP-1 agonists appear to attenuate inflammation, and the patterns of redistribution of adipose tissue may also be of interest.”

She also pointed out that the reduction in cardiovascular events appeared even earlier in this population of obese nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease than in prior studies of patients with diabetes. “It may suggest that there is particular benefit for this type of therapy in patients with an inflammatory milieu. I look forward to seeing further analyses to help tease apart the correlation between changes in inflammation, observed weight loss and cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Effect on clinical practice

With the majority of patients with cardiovascular disease being overweight, these results are obviously going to increase demand for semaglutide, but cost and availability are going to be an issue.

Dr. Bhatt noted that semaglutide is already very popular. “Weight loss drugs are somewhat different from other medications. I can spend 30 minutes trying to convince a patient to take a statin, but here people realize it’s going to cause weight loss and they come in asking for it even if they don’t strictly need it. I think it’s good to have cardiovascular outcome data because now at least for this population of patients, we have evidence to prescribe it.”

He agreed with Dr. Lincoff that these new data should encourage insurance companies to cover the drug, because in reducing cardiovascular events it should also improve downstream health care costs.

“It is providing clear cardiovascular and kidney benefit, so it is in the best interest to the health care system to fund this drug,” he said. “I hope insurers look at it rationally in this way, but they may also be frightened of the explosion of patients wanting this drug and now doctors wanting to prescribe it and how that would affect their shorter-term costs.”

Dr. Lincoff said it would not be easy to prioritize certain groups. “We couldn’t identify any subgroup who showed particularly more benefit than any others. But in the evolution of any therapy, there is a time period where it is in short supply and prohibitively expensive, then over time when there is some competition and pricing deals occur as more people are advocating for it, they become more available.”
 

‘A welcome treatment option’

In an editorial accompanying publication of the trial, Amit Khera, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, noted that baseline risk factors such as LDL cholesterol (78 mg/dL) and systolic blood pressure (131 mm Hg) were not ideal in the semaglutide group in this trial, and they suggest that the benefits of semaglutide may be attenuated when these measures are better controlled.

But given that more than 20 million people in the United States have coronary artery disease, with the majority having overweight or obesity and only approximately 30% having concomitant diabetes, they said that, even in the context of well-controlled risk factors and very low LDL cholesterol levels, the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in these persons is unacceptably high. “Thus, the SELECT trial provides a welcome treatment option that can be extended to millions of additional patients.”

However, the editorialists cautioned that semaglutide at current pricing comes with a significant cost to both patients and society, which makes this treatment inaccessible for many. 

They added that intensive lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery remain effective but underutilized options for obesity, and that the prevention of obesity before it develops should be the primary goal.

The SELECT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Lincoff is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Nissen are involved in a cardiovascular outcomes trial with a new investigational weight loss drug from Lilly. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Ballantyne are also investigators in a Novo Nordisk trial of a new anti-inflammatory drug.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – A proprietary formula showed good performance stratifying the risk of adults with early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) advancing to more severe kidney dysfunction and increased health care needs. The analyses offer the possibility of focusing intensified medical management of early-stage CKD on those patients who could potentially receive the most benefit.

The Klinrisk model predicts the risk of an adult with early-stage CKD developing either a 40% or greater drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate or kidney failure. It calculates risk based on 20 lab-measured variables that include serum creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and other values taken from routinely ordered tests such as complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In the most recent and largest external validation study using data from 4.6 million American adults enrolled in commercial and Medicare insurance plans, the results showed Klinrisk correctly predicted CKD progression in 80%-83% of individuals over 2 years and in 78%-83% of individuals over 5 years, depending on the insurance provider, Navdeep Tangri, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. When urinalysis data were available, the model correctly predicted CKD progression in 81%-87% of individuals over 2 years and in 80%-87% of individuals over 5 years. These results follow prior reports of several other successful validations of Klinrisk.
 

‘Ready to implement’

“The Klinrisk model is ready to implement by any payer, health system, or clinic where the needed lab data are available,” said Dr. Tangri, a nephrologist and professor at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and founder of Klinrisk Inc., the company developing and commercializing the Klinrisk assessment tool.

For the time being, Dr. Tangri sees Klinrisk as a population health device that can allow insurers and health systems to track management quality and quality improvement and to target patients who stand to benefit most from relatively expensive resources. This includes prescriptions for finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) for people who also have type 2 diabetes, and agents from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors such as dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly).

He has also begun discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about the data the agency will need to consider Klinrisk for potential approval as a new medical device, perhaps in 2025. That’s how he envisions getting a Klinrisk assessment into the hands of caregivers that they could use with individual patients to create an appropriate treatment plan.

Results from his new analysis showed that “all the kidney disease action is in the 10%-20% of people with the highest risk on Klinrisk, while not much happens in those in the bottom half,” Dr. Tangri said during his presentation.

“We’re trying to find the patients who get the largest [absolute] benefit from intensified treatment,” he added in an interview. “Klinrisk finds people with high-risk kidney disease early on, when kidney function is still normal or near normal. High-risk patients are often completely unrecognized. Risk-based management” that identifies the early-stage CKD patients who would benefit most from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone, and other foundational treatments to slow CKD progression “is better than the free-for-all that occurs today.”

Simplified data collection

“Klinrisk is very effective,” but requires follow-up by clinicians and health systems to implement its findings, commented Josef Coresh, MD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore. Dr. Coresh compared it with a free equation that estimates a person’s risk for a 40% drop in kidney function over the next 3 years developed by Dr. Tangri, Dr. Coresh, and many collaborators led by Morgan C. Grams, MD, PhD, of New York University that they published in 2022, and posted on a website of the CKD Prognosis Consortium.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD Prognosis Consortium formula “takes a different approach” from Klinrisk. The commercial formula “is simpler, only using lab measures, and avoids inputs taken from physical examination such as systolic blood pressure and body mass index and health history data such as smoking, noted Dr. Coresh. He also speculated that “a commercial formula that must be paid for may counterintuitively result in better follow-up for making management changes if it uses some of the resources for education and system changes.”

Using data from multiple sources, like the CKD Prognosis Consortium equation, can create implementation challenges, said Dr. Tangri. “Lab results don’t vary much,” which makes Klinrisk “quite an improvement for implementation. It’s easier to implement.”

Other findings from the newest validation study that Dr. Tangri presented were that the people studied with Klinrisk scores in the top 10% had, over the next 2 years of follow-up and compared with people in the bottom half for Klinrisk staging, a 3- to 5-fold higher rate of all-cause medical costs, a 13-30-fold increase in CKD-related costs, and a 5- to 10-fold increase in hospitalizations and ED visits.

Early identification of CKD and early initiation of intensified treatment for high-risk patients can reduce the rate of progression to dialysis, reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, and lower the cost of care, Dr. Tangri said.

The validation study in 4.6 million Americans was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Tangri founded and has an ownership interest in Klinrisk. He has also received honoraria from, has ownership interests in, and has been a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Coresh had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – A proprietary formula showed good performance stratifying the risk of adults with early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) advancing to more severe kidney dysfunction and increased health care needs. The analyses offer the possibility of focusing intensified medical management of early-stage CKD on those patients who could potentially receive the most benefit.

The Klinrisk model predicts the risk of an adult with early-stage CKD developing either a 40% or greater drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate or kidney failure. It calculates risk based on 20 lab-measured variables that include serum creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and other values taken from routinely ordered tests such as complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In the most recent and largest external validation study using data from 4.6 million American adults enrolled in commercial and Medicare insurance plans, the results showed Klinrisk correctly predicted CKD progression in 80%-83% of individuals over 2 years and in 78%-83% of individuals over 5 years, depending on the insurance provider, Navdeep Tangri, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. When urinalysis data were available, the model correctly predicted CKD progression in 81%-87% of individuals over 2 years and in 80%-87% of individuals over 5 years. These results follow prior reports of several other successful validations of Klinrisk.
 

‘Ready to implement’

“The Klinrisk model is ready to implement by any payer, health system, or clinic where the needed lab data are available,” said Dr. Tangri, a nephrologist and professor at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and founder of Klinrisk Inc., the company developing and commercializing the Klinrisk assessment tool.

For the time being, Dr. Tangri sees Klinrisk as a population health device that can allow insurers and health systems to track management quality and quality improvement and to target patients who stand to benefit most from relatively expensive resources. This includes prescriptions for finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) for people who also have type 2 diabetes, and agents from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors such as dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly).

He has also begun discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about the data the agency will need to consider Klinrisk for potential approval as a new medical device, perhaps in 2025. That’s how he envisions getting a Klinrisk assessment into the hands of caregivers that they could use with individual patients to create an appropriate treatment plan.

Results from his new analysis showed that “all the kidney disease action is in the 10%-20% of people with the highest risk on Klinrisk, while not much happens in those in the bottom half,” Dr. Tangri said during his presentation.

“We’re trying to find the patients who get the largest [absolute] benefit from intensified treatment,” he added in an interview. “Klinrisk finds people with high-risk kidney disease early on, when kidney function is still normal or near normal. High-risk patients are often completely unrecognized. Risk-based management” that identifies the early-stage CKD patients who would benefit most from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone, and other foundational treatments to slow CKD progression “is better than the free-for-all that occurs today.”

Simplified data collection

“Klinrisk is very effective,” but requires follow-up by clinicians and health systems to implement its findings, commented Josef Coresh, MD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore. Dr. Coresh compared it with a free equation that estimates a person’s risk for a 40% drop in kidney function over the next 3 years developed by Dr. Tangri, Dr. Coresh, and many collaborators led by Morgan C. Grams, MD, PhD, of New York University that they published in 2022, and posted on a website of the CKD Prognosis Consortium.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD Prognosis Consortium formula “takes a different approach” from Klinrisk. The commercial formula “is simpler, only using lab measures, and avoids inputs taken from physical examination such as systolic blood pressure and body mass index and health history data such as smoking, noted Dr. Coresh. He also speculated that “a commercial formula that must be paid for may counterintuitively result in better follow-up for making management changes if it uses some of the resources for education and system changes.”

Using data from multiple sources, like the CKD Prognosis Consortium equation, can create implementation challenges, said Dr. Tangri. “Lab results don’t vary much,” which makes Klinrisk “quite an improvement for implementation. It’s easier to implement.”

Other findings from the newest validation study that Dr. Tangri presented were that the people studied with Klinrisk scores in the top 10% had, over the next 2 years of follow-up and compared with people in the bottom half for Klinrisk staging, a 3- to 5-fold higher rate of all-cause medical costs, a 13-30-fold increase in CKD-related costs, and a 5- to 10-fold increase in hospitalizations and ED visits.

Early identification of CKD and early initiation of intensified treatment for high-risk patients can reduce the rate of progression to dialysis, reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, and lower the cost of care, Dr. Tangri said.

The validation study in 4.6 million Americans was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Tangri founded and has an ownership interest in Klinrisk. He has also received honoraria from, has ownership interests in, and has been a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Coresh had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – A proprietary formula showed good performance stratifying the risk of adults with early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) advancing to more severe kidney dysfunction and increased health care needs. The analyses offer the possibility of focusing intensified medical management of early-stage CKD on those patients who could potentially receive the most benefit.

The Klinrisk model predicts the risk of an adult with early-stage CKD developing either a 40% or greater drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate or kidney failure. It calculates risk based on 20 lab-measured variables that include serum creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and other values taken from routinely ordered tests such as complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In the most recent and largest external validation study using data from 4.6 million American adults enrolled in commercial and Medicare insurance plans, the results showed Klinrisk correctly predicted CKD progression in 80%-83% of individuals over 2 years and in 78%-83% of individuals over 5 years, depending on the insurance provider, Navdeep Tangri, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. When urinalysis data were available, the model correctly predicted CKD progression in 81%-87% of individuals over 2 years and in 80%-87% of individuals over 5 years. These results follow prior reports of several other successful validations of Klinrisk.
 

‘Ready to implement’

“The Klinrisk model is ready to implement by any payer, health system, or clinic where the needed lab data are available,” said Dr. Tangri, a nephrologist and professor at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and founder of Klinrisk Inc., the company developing and commercializing the Klinrisk assessment tool.

For the time being, Dr. Tangri sees Klinrisk as a population health device that can allow insurers and health systems to track management quality and quality improvement and to target patients who stand to benefit most from relatively expensive resources. This includes prescriptions for finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) for people who also have type 2 diabetes, and agents from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors such as dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly).

He has also begun discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about the data the agency will need to consider Klinrisk for potential approval as a new medical device, perhaps in 2025. That’s how he envisions getting a Klinrisk assessment into the hands of caregivers that they could use with individual patients to create an appropriate treatment plan.

Results from his new analysis showed that “all the kidney disease action is in the 10%-20% of people with the highest risk on Klinrisk, while not much happens in those in the bottom half,” Dr. Tangri said during his presentation.

“We’re trying to find the patients who get the largest [absolute] benefit from intensified treatment,” he added in an interview. “Klinrisk finds people with high-risk kidney disease early on, when kidney function is still normal or near normal. High-risk patients are often completely unrecognized. Risk-based management” that identifies the early-stage CKD patients who would benefit most from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone, and other foundational treatments to slow CKD progression “is better than the free-for-all that occurs today.”

Simplified data collection

“Klinrisk is very effective,” but requires follow-up by clinicians and health systems to implement its findings, commented Josef Coresh, MD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore. Dr. Coresh compared it with a free equation that estimates a person’s risk for a 40% drop in kidney function over the next 3 years developed by Dr. Tangri, Dr. Coresh, and many collaborators led by Morgan C. Grams, MD, PhD, of New York University that they published in 2022, and posted on a website of the CKD Prognosis Consortium.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD Prognosis Consortium formula “takes a different approach” from Klinrisk. The commercial formula “is simpler, only using lab measures, and avoids inputs taken from physical examination such as systolic blood pressure and body mass index and health history data such as smoking, noted Dr. Coresh. He also speculated that “a commercial formula that must be paid for may counterintuitively result in better follow-up for making management changes if it uses some of the resources for education and system changes.”

Using data from multiple sources, like the CKD Prognosis Consortium equation, can create implementation challenges, said Dr. Tangri. “Lab results don’t vary much,” which makes Klinrisk “quite an improvement for implementation. It’s easier to implement.”

Other findings from the newest validation study that Dr. Tangri presented were that the people studied with Klinrisk scores in the top 10% had, over the next 2 years of follow-up and compared with people in the bottom half for Klinrisk staging, a 3- to 5-fold higher rate of all-cause medical costs, a 13-30-fold increase in CKD-related costs, and a 5- to 10-fold increase in hospitalizations and ED visits.

Early identification of CKD and early initiation of intensified treatment for high-risk patients can reduce the rate of progression to dialysis, reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, and lower the cost of care, Dr. Tangri said.

The validation study in 4.6 million Americans was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Tangri founded and has an ownership interest in Klinrisk. He has also received honoraria from, has ownership interests in, and has been a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Coresh had no disclosures.

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

TOPLINE:

Obtaining standing office blood pressure measurements improves detection of hypertension, either alone or when added to a seated BP reading, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 125 adults, mean age 49 years and 62% female, who were free of cardiovascular disease and had no previous history of hypertension.
• Researchers collected data on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and three BP measurements in the seated position, then three in the standing position.
• They assessed overall diagnostic accuracy of seated and standing BP using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and considered a Bayes factor (BF) of 3 or greater as significant.
• They defined the presence of hypertension (HTN) by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2023 European Society of Hypertension HTN guidelines based on ABPM.
• Sensitivity and specificity of standing BP was determined using cutoffs derived from Youden index, while sensitivity and specificity of seated BP was determined using the cutoff of 130/80 mm Hg and by 140/90 mm Hg.

TAKEAWAY:

• The AUROC for standing office systolic blood pressure (SBP; 0.81; 0.71-0.92) was significantly higher than for seated office SBP (0.70; 0.49-0.91) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg (BF = 11.8), and significantly higher for seated versus standing office diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 0.65; 0.49-0.82) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg (BF = 4.9).
• The AUROCs for adding standing office BP to seated office BP improved the accuracy of detecting HTN, compared with seated office BP alone when HTN was defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, or when defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg (all BFs > 3).
• Sensitivity of standing SBP was 71%, compared with 43% for seated SBP.

IN PRACTICE:

The “excellent diagnostic performance” for standing BP measures revealed by the study “highlights that standing office BP has acceptable discriminative capabilities in identifying the presence of hypertension in adults,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by John M. Giacona, Hypertension Section, department of internal medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study enrolled only adults free of comorbidities who were not taking antihypertensive medications, the results may not be applicable to other patients. The study design was retrospective, and the order of BP measurements was not randomized (standing BP measurements were obtained only after seated BP).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obtaining standing office blood pressure measurements improves detection of hypertension, either alone or when added to a seated BP reading, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 125 adults, mean age 49 years and 62% female, who were free of cardiovascular disease and had no previous history of hypertension.
• Researchers collected data on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and three BP measurements in the seated position, then three in the standing position.
• They assessed overall diagnostic accuracy of seated and standing BP using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and considered a Bayes factor (BF) of 3 or greater as significant.
• They defined the presence of hypertension (HTN) by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2023 European Society of Hypertension HTN guidelines based on ABPM.
• Sensitivity and specificity of standing BP was determined using cutoffs derived from Youden index, while sensitivity and specificity of seated BP was determined using the cutoff of 130/80 mm Hg and by 140/90 mm Hg.

TAKEAWAY:

• The AUROC for standing office systolic blood pressure (SBP; 0.81; 0.71-0.92) was significantly higher than for seated office SBP (0.70; 0.49-0.91) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg (BF = 11.8), and significantly higher for seated versus standing office diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 0.65; 0.49-0.82) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg (BF = 4.9).
• The AUROCs for adding standing office BP to seated office BP improved the accuracy of detecting HTN, compared with seated office BP alone when HTN was defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, or when defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg (all BFs > 3).
• Sensitivity of standing SBP was 71%, compared with 43% for seated SBP.

IN PRACTICE:

The “excellent diagnostic performance” for standing BP measures revealed by the study “highlights that standing office BP has acceptable discriminative capabilities in identifying the presence of hypertension in adults,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by John M. Giacona, Hypertension Section, department of internal medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study enrolled only adults free of comorbidities who were not taking antihypertensive medications, the results may not be applicable to other patients. The study design was retrospective, and the order of BP measurements was not randomized (standing BP measurements were obtained only after seated BP).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obtaining standing office blood pressure measurements improves detection of hypertension, either alone or when added to a seated BP reading, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 125 adults, mean age 49 years and 62% female, who were free of cardiovascular disease and had no previous history of hypertension.
• Researchers collected data on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and three BP measurements in the seated position, then three in the standing position.
• They assessed overall diagnostic accuracy of seated and standing BP using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and considered a Bayes factor (BF) of 3 or greater as significant.
• They defined the presence of hypertension (HTN) by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2023 European Society of Hypertension HTN guidelines based on ABPM.
• Sensitivity and specificity of standing BP was determined using cutoffs derived from Youden index, while sensitivity and specificity of seated BP was determined using the cutoff of 130/80 mm Hg and by 140/90 mm Hg.

TAKEAWAY:

• The AUROC for standing office systolic blood pressure (SBP; 0.81; 0.71-0.92) was significantly higher than for seated office SBP (0.70; 0.49-0.91) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg (BF = 11.8), and significantly higher for seated versus standing office diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 0.65; 0.49-0.82) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg (BF = 4.9).
• The AUROCs for adding standing office BP to seated office BP improved the accuracy of detecting HTN, compared with seated office BP alone when HTN was defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, or when defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg (all BFs > 3).
• Sensitivity of standing SBP was 71%, compared with 43% for seated SBP.

IN PRACTICE:

The “excellent diagnostic performance” for standing BP measures revealed by the study “highlights that standing office BP has acceptable discriminative capabilities in identifying the presence of hypertension in adults,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by John M. Giacona, Hypertension Section, department of internal medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study enrolled only adults free of comorbidities who were not taking antihypertensive medications, the results may not be applicable to other patients. The study design was retrospective, and the order of BP measurements was not randomized (standing BP measurements were obtained only after seated BP).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The current highly effective antiobesity medications approved for treating obesity (semaglutide), under review (tirzepatide), or in late-stage clinical trials “appear to lower the body’s target and defended fat mass [set point]” but do not permanently fix it at a lower point, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, explained in a lecture during the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

It is very likely that patients with obesity will have to take these antiobesity medications “forever,” he said, “until we identify and can repair the cellular and molecular mechanisms that the body uses to regulate body fat mass throughout the life cycle and that are dysfunctional in obesity.”

“The body is able to regulate fat mass at multiple stages during development,” Dr. Kaplan, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, explained, “and when it doesn’t do it appropriately, that becomes the physiological basis of obesity.”

The loss of baby fat, as well as fat changes during puberty, menopause, aging, and, in particular, during and after pregnancy, “all occur without conscious or purposeful input,” he noted.

The body uses food intake and energy expenditure to reach and defend its intended fat mass, and there is an evolutionary benefit to doing this.

For example, people recovering from an acute illness can regain the lost fat and weight. A woman can support a pregnancy and lactation by increasing fat mass.

However, “the idea that [with antiobesity medications] we should be aiming for a fixed lower amount of fat is probably not a good idea.” Dr. Kaplan cautioned. “These medications change [the defended fat mass] to something that is more normal, rather than ‘fixing’ it.”

People need the flexibility to recover lost fat and weight after an acute illness or injury, and pregnant women need to gain an appropriate amount of body fat to support pregnancy and lactation.
 

Intermittent therapy: A practical strategy?

The long-term benefit of antiobesity medications requires continuous use, Dr. Kaplan noted. For example, in the STEP 1 trial of semaglutide in patients with obesity and without diabetes, when treatment was stopped at 68 weeks, average weight increased through 120 weeks, although it did not return to baseline levels.

Intermittent antiobesity therapy may be an effective, “very practical strategy” to maintain weight loss, which would also “address current challenges of high cost, limited drug availability, and inadequate access to care.”

“Until we have strategies for decreasing the cost of effective obesity treatment, and ensuring more equitable access to obesity care,” Dr. Kaplan said, “optimizing algorithms for the use of intermittent therapy may be an effective stopgap measure.”

Dr. Kaplan is or has recently been a paid consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and multiple pharmaceutical companies developing antiobesity medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The current highly effective antiobesity medications approved for treating obesity (semaglutide), under review (tirzepatide), or in late-stage clinical trials “appear to lower the body’s target and defended fat mass [set point]” but do not permanently fix it at a lower point, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, explained in a lecture during the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

It is very likely that patients with obesity will have to take these antiobesity medications “forever,” he said, “until we identify and can repair the cellular and molecular mechanisms that the body uses to regulate body fat mass throughout the life cycle and that are dysfunctional in obesity.”

“The body is able to regulate fat mass at multiple stages during development,” Dr. Kaplan, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, explained, “and when it doesn’t do it appropriately, that becomes the physiological basis of obesity.”

The loss of baby fat, as well as fat changes during puberty, menopause, aging, and, in particular, during and after pregnancy, “all occur without conscious or purposeful input,” he noted.

The body uses food intake and energy expenditure to reach and defend its intended fat mass, and there is an evolutionary benefit to doing this.

For example, people recovering from an acute illness can regain the lost fat and weight. A woman can support a pregnancy and lactation by increasing fat mass.

However, “the idea that [with antiobesity medications] we should be aiming for a fixed lower amount of fat is probably not a good idea.” Dr. Kaplan cautioned. “These medications change [the defended fat mass] to something that is more normal, rather than ‘fixing’ it.”

People need the flexibility to recover lost fat and weight after an acute illness or injury, and pregnant women need to gain an appropriate amount of body fat to support pregnancy and lactation.
 

Intermittent therapy: A practical strategy?

The long-term benefit of antiobesity medications requires continuous use, Dr. Kaplan noted. For example, in the STEP 1 trial of semaglutide in patients with obesity and without diabetes, when treatment was stopped at 68 weeks, average weight increased through 120 weeks, although it did not return to baseline levels.

Intermittent antiobesity therapy may be an effective, “very practical strategy” to maintain weight loss, which would also “address current challenges of high cost, limited drug availability, and inadequate access to care.”

“Until we have strategies for decreasing the cost of effective obesity treatment, and ensuring more equitable access to obesity care,” Dr. Kaplan said, “optimizing algorithms for the use of intermittent therapy may be an effective stopgap measure.”

Dr. Kaplan is or has recently been a paid consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and multiple pharmaceutical companies developing antiobesity medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The current highly effective antiobesity medications approved for treating obesity (semaglutide), under review (tirzepatide), or in late-stage clinical trials “appear to lower the body’s target and defended fat mass [set point]” but do not permanently fix it at a lower point, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, explained in a lecture during the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

It is very likely that patients with obesity will have to take these antiobesity medications “forever,” he said, “until we identify and can repair the cellular and molecular mechanisms that the body uses to regulate body fat mass throughout the life cycle and that are dysfunctional in obesity.”

“The body is able to regulate fat mass at multiple stages during development,” Dr. Kaplan, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, explained, “and when it doesn’t do it appropriately, that becomes the physiological basis of obesity.”

The loss of baby fat, as well as fat changes during puberty, menopause, aging, and, in particular, during and after pregnancy, “all occur without conscious or purposeful input,” he noted.

The body uses food intake and energy expenditure to reach and defend its intended fat mass, and there is an evolutionary benefit to doing this.

For example, people recovering from an acute illness can regain the lost fat and weight. A woman can support a pregnancy and lactation by increasing fat mass.

However, “the idea that [with antiobesity medications] we should be aiming for a fixed lower amount of fat is probably not a good idea.” Dr. Kaplan cautioned. “These medications change [the defended fat mass] to something that is more normal, rather than ‘fixing’ it.”

People need the flexibility to recover lost fat and weight after an acute illness or injury, and pregnant women need to gain an appropriate amount of body fat to support pregnancy and lactation.
 

Intermittent therapy: A practical strategy?

The long-term benefit of antiobesity medications requires continuous use, Dr. Kaplan noted. For example, in the STEP 1 trial of semaglutide in patients with obesity and without diabetes, when treatment was stopped at 68 weeks, average weight increased through 120 weeks, although it did not return to baseline levels.

Intermittent antiobesity therapy may be an effective, “very practical strategy” to maintain weight loss, which would also “address current challenges of high cost, limited drug availability, and inadequate access to care.”

“Until we have strategies for decreasing the cost of effective obesity treatment, and ensuring more equitable access to obesity care,” Dr. Kaplan said, “optimizing algorithms for the use of intermittent therapy may be an effective stopgap measure.”

Dr. Kaplan is or has recently been a paid consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and multiple pharmaceutical companies developing antiobesity medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are well aware of the benefits of physical activity and the consequences of inactivity. 

Managing the diseases associated with inactivity – heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension – falls to physicians. So one might assume they routinely prescribe exercise to their patients, just as they would statins, insulin, or beta-blockers. 

But evidence indicates that doctors don’t routinely have those conversations. They may lack confidence in their ability to give effective advice, fear offending patients, or simply not know what to say.

That’s understandable. Many doctors receive little training on how to counsel patients to exercise, according to research over the past decade. Despite efforts to improve this, many medical students still feel unprepared to prescribe physical activity to patients.

But here’s the thing: Doctors are in a unique position to change things.

Only 28% of Americans meet physical activity guidelines, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the same time, other research suggests that patients want to be more active and would like help from their doctor.

“Patients are motivated to hear about physical activity from physicians and try to make a change,” says Jane Thornton, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in family medicine at Western University, Ont. “Just saying something, even if you don’t have specialized knowledge, makes a difference because of the credibility we have as physicians.”

Conveniently, just like exercise, the best way to get started is to ... get started.

Here’s how to break down the process into steps.
 

1. Ask patients about their physical activity

Think of this as taking any kind of patient history, only for physical activity.

Do they have a regular exercise routine? For how many minutes a day are they active? How many days a week?

“It takes less than a minute to ask and record,” Dr. Thornton says. Once you put it into the patient’s electronic record, you have something you can track.
 

2. Write an actual prescription

By giving the patient a written, printed prescription when they leave your office, “you’re showing it’s an important part of treatment or prevention,” Dr. Thornton explains. It puts physical activity on the level of a vital sign.

Include frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise. The American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise is Medicine initiative provides a prescription template you can use.
 

3. Measure what they do

Measurement helps the patient adopt the new behavior, and it helps the physician provide tailored advice going forward, Dr. Thornton says.

With the rise of health-monitoring wearables, tracking activity has never been easier. Of course, not everyone wants to (or can afford to) use a smartwatch or fitness tracker.

For tech-averse patients, ask if they’re willing to write something down, like how many minutes they spent walking, or how many yoga classes they attended. You may never get this from some patients, but it never hurts to ask.
 

4. Refer out when necessary

This brings us to a sticky issue for many physicians: lack of confidence in their ability to speak authoritatively about physical activity. “In most cases, you can absolutely say, ‘Start slow, go gradually,’ that kind of thing,” Dr. Thornton says. “As with anything, confidence will come with practice.”

For specific prescriptive advice, check out the Exercise is Medicine website, which also has handouts you can share with patients and information for specific conditions. If your patient has prediabetes, you can also point them toward the CDC’s diabetes prevention program, which is available in-person or online and may be free or covered by insurance.

If a patient has contraindications, refer out. If you don’t have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, Dr. Thornton recommends reaching out to your regional or national association of sports-medicine professionals. You should be able to find it with a quick Google search.
 

5. Follow up

Ask about physical activity during every contact, either in person or online. 

Dr. Thornton says the second and fifth steps matter most to patients, especially when the prescription and follow-up come from their primary care physician, rather than a nurse or physician assistant to whom you’ve delegated the task.

“The value comes in having a physician emphasize the importance,” Dr. Thornton says. The more time you spend on it, the more that value comes through.
 

What NOT to say to patients about exercise

This might surprise you: 

“I definitely don’t think telling people the official recommendations for physical activity is useful,” says Yoni Freedhoff, MD, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. “If anything, I’d venture it’s counterproductive.”

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the recommended minimum – 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity per week. The problem is what it says to a patient who doesn’t come close to those standards. 

“Few real-world people have the interest, time, energy, or privilege to achieve them,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “Many will recognize that instantly and consequently feel [that] less than that is pointless.”

And that, Dr. Thornton says, is categorically not true. “Even minimal physical activity, in some cases, is beneficial.”

You also want to avoid any explicit connection between exercise and weight loss, Dr. Thornton says.

Though many people do connect the two, the link is often negative, notes a 2019 study from the University of Toronto., triggering painful memories that might go all the way back to gym class. 

Try this pivot from Dr. Freedhoff: “Focus on the role of exercise in mitigating the risks of weight,” he says – like decreasing pain, increasing energy, and improving sleep.
 

How to motivate patients to move

New research backs up this more positive approach. In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, doctors in the United Kingdom who emphasized benefits and minimized health harms convinced more patients to join a weight management program than negative or neutral docs did. These doctors conveyed optimism and excitement, smiling and avoiding any mention of obesity or body mass index.

Exactly what benefits inspire change will be different for each patient. But in general, the more immediate the benefit, the more motivating it will be. 

As the University of Toronto study noted, patients weren’t motivated by vague, distant goals like “increasing life expectancy or avoiding health problems many years in the future.”

They’re much more likely to take action to avoid surgery, reduce medications, or minimize the risk of falling. 

For an older patient, Dr. Freedhoff says, “focusing on the preservation of functional independence can be extremely motivating.” That’s especially true if the patient has vivid memories of seeing a sedentary loved one decline late in life. 

For patients who may be more focused on appearance, they could respond to the idea of improving their body composition. For that, “we talk about the quality of weight loss,” says Spencer Nadolsky, DO, an obesity and lipid specialist and medical director of WeightWatchers. “Ultimately, exercise helps shape the body instead of just changing the number on the scale.”
 

Reducing resistance to resistance training

A conversation about reshaping the body or avoiding age-related disabilities leads naturally to resistance training.  

“I always frame resistance training as the single most valuable thing a person might do to try to preserve their functional independence,” Dr. Freedhoff says. If the patient is over 65, he won’t wait for them to show an interest. “I’ll absolutely bring it up with them directly.”

Dr. Freedhoff has an on-site training facility where trainers show patients how to work out at home with minimal equipment, like dumbbells and resistance bands. 

Most doctors, however, don’t have those options. That can lead to a tricky conversation. Participants in the University of Toronto study told the authors they disliked the gym, finding it “boring, intimidating, or discouraging.” 

And yet, “a common suggestion ... from health care providers was to join a gym.”

Many patients, Spencer Nadolsky, MD, says, associate strength training with “grunting, groaning, or getting ‘bulky’ vs. ‘toned.’ ” Memories of soreness from overzealous workouts are another barrier.

He recommends “starting small and slow,” with one or two full-body workouts a week. Those initial workouts might include just one to two sets of four to five exercises. “Consider if someone is exercising at home or in a gym to build a routine around equipment that’s available to them,” Dr. Nadolsky says.

Once you determine what you have to work with, help the patient choose exercises that fit their needs, goals, preferences, limitations, and prior injuries.

One more consideration: While Dr. Nadolsky tries to “stay away from telling a patient they need to do specific types of exercise to be successful,” he makes an exception for patients who’re taking a GLP-1 agonist. “There is a concern for muscle mass loss along with fat loss.”
 

Practicing, preaching, and checking privilege

When Dr. Thornton, Dr. Freedhoff, and Dr. Nadolsky discuss exercise, their patients know they practice what they preach. 

Dr. Nadolsky, who was a nationally ranked wrestler at the University of North Carolina, hosts the Docs Who Lift podcast with his brother, Karl Nadolsky, MD. 

Dr. Freedhoff is also a lifter and fitness enthusiast, and Dr. Thornton was a world-class rower whose team came within 0.8 seconds of a silver medal at the Beijing Olympics. (They finished fourth.)

But not all physicians follow their own lifestyle advice, Dr. Freedhoff says. That doesn’t make them bad doctors – it makes them human.

“I’ve done 300 minutes a week of exercise” – the recommended amount for weight maintenance – “to see what’s involved,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “That’s far, far, far from a trivial amount.”

That leads to this advice for his fellow physicians:

“The most important thing to know about exercise is that finding the time and having the health to do so is a privilege,” he says. 

Understanding that is crucial for assessing your patient’s needs and providing the right help.

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

Clinicians are well aware of the benefits of physical activity and the consequences of inactivity. 

Managing the diseases associated with inactivity – heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension – falls to physicians. So one might assume they routinely prescribe exercise to their patients, just as they would statins, insulin, or beta-blockers. 

But evidence indicates that doctors don’t routinely have those conversations. They may lack confidence in their ability to give effective advice, fear offending patients, or simply not know what to say.

That’s understandable. Many doctors receive little training on how to counsel patients to exercise, according to research over the past decade. Despite efforts to improve this, many medical students still feel unprepared to prescribe physical activity to patients.

But here’s the thing: Doctors are in a unique position to change things.

Only 28% of Americans meet physical activity guidelines, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the same time, other research suggests that patients want to be more active and would like help from their doctor.

“Patients are motivated to hear about physical activity from physicians and try to make a change,” says Jane Thornton, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in family medicine at Western University, Ont. “Just saying something, even if you don’t have specialized knowledge, makes a difference because of the credibility we have as physicians.”

Conveniently, just like exercise, the best way to get started is to ... get started.

Here’s how to break down the process into steps.
 

1. Ask patients about their physical activity

Think of this as taking any kind of patient history, only for physical activity.

Do they have a regular exercise routine? For how many minutes a day are they active? How many days a week?

“It takes less than a minute to ask and record,” Dr. Thornton says. Once you put it into the patient’s electronic record, you have something you can track.
 

2. Write an actual prescription

By giving the patient a written, printed prescription when they leave your office, “you’re showing it’s an important part of treatment or prevention,” Dr. Thornton explains. It puts physical activity on the level of a vital sign.

Include frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise. The American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise is Medicine initiative provides a prescription template you can use.
 

3. Measure what they do

Measurement helps the patient adopt the new behavior, and it helps the physician provide tailored advice going forward, Dr. Thornton says.

With the rise of health-monitoring wearables, tracking activity has never been easier. Of course, not everyone wants to (or can afford to) use a smartwatch or fitness tracker.

For tech-averse patients, ask if they’re willing to write something down, like how many minutes they spent walking, or how many yoga classes they attended. You may never get this from some patients, but it never hurts to ask.
 

4. Refer out when necessary

This brings us to a sticky issue for many physicians: lack of confidence in their ability to speak authoritatively about physical activity. “In most cases, you can absolutely say, ‘Start slow, go gradually,’ that kind of thing,” Dr. Thornton says. “As with anything, confidence will come with practice.”

For specific prescriptive advice, check out the Exercise is Medicine website, which also has handouts you can share with patients and information for specific conditions. If your patient has prediabetes, you can also point them toward the CDC’s diabetes prevention program, which is available in-person or online and may be free or covered by insurance.

If a patient has contraindications, refer out. If you don’t have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, Dr. Thornton recommends reaching out to your regional or national association of sports-medicine professionals. You should be able to find it with a quick Google search.
 

5. Follow up

Ask about physical activity during every contact, either in person or online. 

Dr. Thornton says the second and fifth steps matter most to patients, especially when the prescription and follow-up come from their primary care physician, rather than a nurse or physician assistant to whom you’ve delegated the task.

“The value comes in having a physician emphasize the importance,” Dr. Thornton says. The more time you spend on it, the more that value comes through.
 

What NOT to say to patients about exercise

This might surprise you: 

“I definitely don’t think telling people the official recommendations for physical activity is useful,” says Yoni Freedhoff, MD, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. “If anything, I’d venture it’s counterproductive.”

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the recommended minimum – 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity per week. The problem is what it says to a patient who doesn’t come close to those standards. 

“Few real-world people have the interest, time, energy, or privilege to achieve them,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “Many will recognize that instantly and consequently feel [that] less than that is pointless.”

And that, Dr. Thornton says, is categorically not true. “Even minimal physical activity, in some cases, is beneficial.”

You also want to avoid any explicit connection between exercise and weight loss, Dr. Thornton says.

Though many people do connect the two, the link is often negative, notes a 2019 study from the University of Toronto., triggering painful memories that might go all the way back to gym class. 

Try this pivot from Dr. Freedhoff: “Focus on the role of exercise in mitigating the risks of weight,” he says – like decreasing pain, increasing energy, and improving sleep.
 

How to motivate patients to move

New research backs up this more positive approach. In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, doctors in the United Kingdom who emphasized benefits and minimized health harms convinced more patients to join a weight management program than negative or neutral docs did. These doctors conveyed optimism and excitement, smiling and avoiding any mention of obesity or body mass index.

Exactly what benefits inspire change will be different for each patient. But in general, the more immediate the benefit, the more motivating it will be. 

As the University of Toronto study noted, patients weren’t motivated by vague, distant goals like “increasing life expectancy or avoiding health problems many years in the future.”

They’re much more likely to take action to avoid surgery, reduce medications, or minimize the risk of falling. 

For an older patient, Dr. Freedhoff says, “focusing on the preservation of functional independence can be extremely motivating.” That’s especially true if the patient has vivid memories of seeing a sedentary loved one decline late in life. 

For patients who may be more focused on appearance, they could respond to the idea of improving their body composition. For that, “we talk about the quality of weight loss,” says Spencer Nadolsky, DO, an obesity and lipid specialist and medical director of WeightWatchers. “Ultimately, exercise helps shape the body instead of just changing the number on the scale.”
 

Reducing resistance to resistance training

A conversation about reshaping the body or avoiding age-related disabilities leads naturally to resistance training.  

“I always frame resistance training as the single most valuable thing a person might do to try to preserve their functional independence,” Dr. Freedhoff says. If the patient is over 65, he won’t wait for them to show an interest. “I’ll absolutely bring it up with them directly.”

Dr. Freedhoff has an on-site training facility where trainers show patients how to work out at home with minimal equipment, like dumbbells and resistance bands. 

Most doctors, however, don’t have those options. That can lead to a tricky conversation. Participants in the University of Toronto study told the authors they disliked the gym, finding it “boring, intimidating, or discouraging.” 

And yet, “a common suggestion ... from health care providers was to join a gym.”

Many patients, Spencer Nadolsky, MD, says, associate strength training with “grunting, groaning, or getting ‘bulky’ vs. ‘toned.’ ” Memories of soreness from overzealous workouts are another barrier.

He recommends “starting small and slow,” with one or two full-body workouts a week. Those initial workouts might include just one to two sets of four to five exercises. “Consider if someone is exercising at home or in a gym to build a routine around equipment that’s available to them,” Dr. Nadolsky says.

Once you determine what you have to work with, help the patient choose exercises that fit their needs, goals, preferences, limitations, and prior injuries.

One more consideration: While Dr. Nadolsky tries to “stay away from telling a patient they need to do specific types of exercise to be successful,” he makes an exception for patients who’re taking a GLP-1 agonist. “There is a concern for muscle mass loss along with fat loss.”
 

Practicing, preaching, and checking privilege

When Dr. Thornton, Dr. Freedhoff, and Dr. Nadolsky discuss exercise, their patients know they practice what they preach. 

Dr. Nadolsky, who was a nationally ranked wrestler at the University of North Carolina, hosts the Docs Who Lift podcast with his brother, Karl Nadolsky, MD. 

Dr. Freedhoff is also a lifter and fitness enthusiast, and Dr. Thornton was a world-class rower whose team came within 0.8 seconds of a silver medal at the Beijing Olympics. (They finished fourth.)

But not all physicians follow their own lifestyle advice, Dr. Freedhoff says. That doesn’t make them bad doctors – it makes them human.

“I’ve done 300 minutes a week of exercise” – the recommended amount for weight maintenance – “to see what’s involved,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “That’s far, far, far from a trivial amount.”

That leads to this advice for his fellow physicians:

“The most important thing to know about exercise is that finding the time and having the health to do so is a privilege,” he says. 

Understanding that is crucial for assessing your patient’s needs and providing the right help.

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

Clinicians are well aware of the benefits of physical activity and the consequences of inactivity. 

Managing the diseases associated with inactivity – heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension – falls to physicians. So one might assume they routinely prescribe exercise to their patients, just as they would statins, insulin, or beta-blockers. 

But evidence indicates that doctors don’t routinely have those conversations. They may lack confidence in their ability to give effective advice, fear offending patients, or simply not know what to say.

That’s understandable. Many doctors receive little training on how to counsel patients to exercise, according to research over the past decade. Despite efforts to improve this, many medical students still feel unprepared to prescribe physical activity to patients.

But here’s the thing: Doctors are in a unique position to change things.

Only 28% of Americans meet physical activity guidelines, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the same time, other research suggests that patients want to be more active and would like help from their doctor.

“Patients are motivated to hear about physical activity from physicians and try to make a change,” says Jane Thornton, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in family medicine at Western University, Ont. “Just saying something, even if you don’t have specialized knowledge, makes a difference because of the credibility we have as physicians.”

Conveniently, just like exercise, the best way to get started is to ... get started.

Here’s how to break down the process into steps.
 

1. Ask patients about their physical activity

Think of this as taking any kind of patient history, only for physical activity.

Do they have a regular exercise routine? For how many minutes a day are they active? How many days a week?

“It takes less than a minute to ask and record,” Dr. Thornton says. Once you put it into the patient’s electronic record, you have something you can track.
 

2. Write an actual prescription

By giving the patient a written, printed prescription when they leave your office, “you’re showing it’s an important part of treatment or prevention,” Dr. Thornton explains. It puts physical activity on the level of a vital sign.

Include frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise. The American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise is Medicine initiative provides a prescription template you can use.
 

3. Measure what they do

Measurement helps the patient adopt the new behavior, and it helps the physician provide tailored advice going forward, Dr. Thornton says.

With the rise of health-monitoring wearables, tracking activity has never been easier. Of course, not everyone wants to (or can afford to) use a smartwatch or fitness tracker.

For tech-averse patients, ask if they’re willing to write something down, like how many minutes they spent walking, or how many yoga classes they attended. You may never get this from some patients, but it never hurts to ask.
 

4. Refer out when necessary

This brings us to a sticky issue for many physicians: lack of confidence in their ability to speak authoritatively about physical activity. “In most cases, you can absolutely say, ‘Start slow, go gradually,’ that kind of thing,” Dr. Thornton says. “As with anything, confidence will come with practice.”

For specific prescriptive advice, check out the Exercise is Medicine website, which also has handouts you can share with patients and information for specific conditions. If your patient has prediabetes, you can also point them toward the CDC’s diabetes prevention program, which is available in-person or online and may be free or covered by insurance.

If a patient has contraindications, refer out. If you don’t have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, Dr. Thornton recommends reaching out to your regional or national association of sports-medicine professionals. You should be able to find it with a quick Google search.
 

5. Follow up

Ask about physical activity during every contact, either in person or online. 

Dr. Thornton says the second and fifth steps matter most to patients, especially when the prescription and follow-up come from their primary care physician, rather than a nurse or physician assistant to whom you’ve delegated the task.

“The value comes in having a physician emphasize the importance,” Dr. Thornton says. The more time you spend on it, the more that value comes through.
 

What NOT to say to patients about exercise

This might surprise you: 

“I definitely don’t think telling people the official recommendations for physical activity is useful,” says Yoni Freedhoff, MD, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. “If anything, I’d venture it’s counterproductive.”

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the recommended minimum – 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity per week. The problem is what it says to a patient who doesn’t come close to those standards. 

“Few real-world people have the interest, time, energy, or privilege to achieve them,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “Many will recognize that instantly and consequently feel [that] less than that is pointless.”

And that, Dr. Thornton says, is categorically not true. “Even minimal physical activity, in some cases, is beneficial.”

You also want to avoid any explicit connection between exercise and weight loss, Dr. Thornton says.

Though many people do connect the two, the link is often negative, notes a 2019 study from the University of Toronto., triggering painful memories that might go all the way back to gym class. 

Try this pivot from Dr. Freedhoff: “Focus on the role of exercise in mitigating the risks of weight,” he says – like decreasing pain, increasing energy, and improving sleep.
 

How to motivate patients to move

New research backs up this more positive approach. In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, doctors in the United Kingdom who emphasized benefits and minimized health harms convinced more patients to join a weight management program than negative or neutral docs did. These doctors conveyed optimism and excitement, smiling and avoiding any mention of obesity or body mass index.

Exactly what benefits inspire change will be different for each patient. But in general, the more immediate the benefit, the more motivating it will be. 

As the University of Toronto study noted, patients weren’t motivated by vague, distant goals like “increasing life expectancy or avoiding health problems many years in the future.”

They’re much more likely to take action to avoid surgery, reduce medications, or minimize the risk of falling. 

For an older patient, Dr. Freedhoff says, “focusing on the preservation of functional independence can be extremely motivating.” That’s especially true if the patient has vivid memories of seeing a sedentary loved one decline late in life. 

For patients who may be more focused on appearance, they could respond to the idea of improving their body composition. For that, “we talk about the quality of weight loss,” says Spencer Nadolsky, DO, an obesity and lipid specialist and medical director of WeightWatchers. “Ultimately, exercise helps shape the body instead of just changing the number on the scale.”
 

Reducing resistance to resistance training

A conversation about reshaping the body or avoiding age-related disabilities leads naturally to resistance training.  

“I always frame resistance training as the single most valuable thing a person might do to try to preserve their functional independence,” Dr. Freedhoff says. If the patient is over 65, he won’t wait for them to show an interest. “I’ll absolutely bring it up with them directly.”

Dr. Freedhoff has an on-site training facility where trainers show patients how to work out at home with minimal equipment, like dumbbells and resistance bands. 

Most doctors, however, don’t have those options. That can lead to a tricky conversation. Participants in the University of Toronto study told the authors they disliked the gym, finding it “boring, intimidating, or discouraging.” 

And yet, “a common suggestion ... from health care providers was to join a gym.”

Many patients, Spencer Nadolsky, MD, says, associate strength training with “grunting, groaning, or getting ‘bulky’ vs. ‘toned.’ ” Memories of soreness from overzealous workouts are another barrier.

He recommends “starting small and slow,” with one or two full-body workouts a week. Those initial workouts might include just one to two sets of four to five exercises. “Consider if someone is exercising at home or in a gym to build a routine around equipment that’s available to them,” Dr. Nadolsky says.

Once you determine what you have to work with, help the patient choose exercises that fit their needs, goals, preferences, limitations, and prior injuries.

One more consideration: While Dr. Nadolsky tries to “stay away from telling a patient they need to do specific types of exercise to be successful,” he makes an exception for patients who’re taking a GLP-1 agonist. “There is a concern for muscle mass loss along with fat loss.”
 

Practicing, preaching, and checking privilege

When Dr. Thornton, Dr. Freedhoff, and Dr. Nadolsky discuss exercise, their patients know they practice what they preach. 

Dr. Nadolsky, who was a nationally ranked wrestler at the University of North Carolina, hosts the Docs Who Lift podcast with his brother, Karl Nadolsky, MD. 

Dr. Freedhoff is also a lifter and fitness enthusiast, and Dr. Thornton was a world-class rower whose team came within 0.8 seconds of a silver medal at the Beijing Olympics. (They finished fourth.)

But not all physicians follow their own lifestyle advice, Dr. Freedhoff says. That doesn’t make them bad doctors – it makes them human.

“I’ve done 300 minutes a week of exercise” – the recommended amount for weight maintenance – “to see what’s involved,” Dr. Freedhoff says. “That’s far, far, far from a trivial amount.”

That leads to this advice for his fellow physicians:

“The most important thing to know about exercise is that finding the time and having the health to do so is a privilege,” he says. 

Understanding that is crucial for assessing your patient’s needs and providing the right help.

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

New evidence points to an association between exposure to “forever chemicals” and an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

The study suggests that higher exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS), may increase a person’s risk for thyroid cancer by 56%.

Several news outlets played up the findings, published online in eBioMedicine. “Dangerous ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Your Everyday Items Are Causing Cancer,” Newsweek reported.

But Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong (Australia), voiced his skepticism.

“While it’s possible that PFAS might be causing thyroid cancer, the evidence thus far is unconvincing and probably not worth worrying about,” said Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz, who was not involved in the research.
 

PFAS and thyroid cancer

PFAS are a class of widely used synthetic chemicals found in many consumer and industrial products, including nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam.

These substances have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade and are ubiquitous in the environment.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including PFAS, has been identified as a potential risk factor for thyroid cancer, with some research linking PFAS exposure to thyroid dysfunction and carcinogenesis.

To investigate further, the researchers performed a nested case-control study of 86 patients with thyroid cancer using plasma samples collected at or before diagnosis and 86 controls without cancer who were matched on age, sex, race/ethnicity, body weight, smoking status, and year of sample collection. 

Eighteen individual PFAS were measured in plasma samples; 10 were undetectable and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining eight PFAS, only one showed a statistically significant correlation with thyroid cancer. 

Specifically, the researchers found that exposure to n-PFOS was associated with a 56% increased risk for thyroid cancer among people who had a high level of the chemical in their blood (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; P = .004). The results were similar when patients with papillary thyroid cancer only were included (aOR, 1.56; P = .009).

A separate longitudinal analysis of 31 patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer 1 year or more after plasma sample collection and 31 controls confirmed the positive association between n-PFOS and thyroid cancer (aOR, 2.67; P < .001). The longitudinal analysis also suggested correlations for a few other PFAS.

“This study supports the hypothesis that PFAS exposure may be associated with increased risk of thyroid cancer,” the authors concluded.

But in a Substack post, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said that it’s important to put the findings into “proper context before getting terrified about this all-new cancer risk.”

First, this study was “genuinely tiny,” with data on just 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls, a limitation the researchers also acknowledged.

“That’s really not enough to do any sort of robust epidemiological analysis – you can generate interesting correlations, but what those correlations mean is anyone’s guess,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said.

Even more importantly, one could easily argue that the results of this study show that most PFAS aren’t associated with thyroid cancer, given that there was no strong association for seven of the eight PFAS measured, he explained.

“There are no serious methodological concerns here, but equally there’s just not much you can reasonably gather from finding a single correlation among a vast ocean of possibilities,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz wrote. “Maybe there’s a correlation there, but you’d need to investigate this in much bigger samples, with more controls, and better data, to understand what that correlation means.”

Bottom line, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz explained, is that “the link between PFAS and thyroid cancer is, at best, incredibly weak.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. One coauthor is cofounder of Linus Biotechnology and is owner of a license agreement with NIES (Japan); received honoraria and travel compensation for lectures for the Bio-Echo and Brin foundations; and has 22 patents at various stages. Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New evidence points to an association between exposure to “forever chemicals” and an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

The study suggests that higher exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS), may increase a person’s risk for thyroid cancer by 56%.

Several news outlets played up the findings, published online in eBioMedicine. “Dangerous ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Your Everyday Items Are Causing Cancer,” Newsweek reported.

But Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong (Australia), voiced his skepticism.

“While it’s possible that PFAS might be causing thyroid cancer, the evidence thus far is unconvincing and probably not worth worrying about,” said Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz, who was not involved in the research.
 

PFAS and thyroid cancer

PFAS are a class of widely used synthetic chemicals found in many consumer and industrial products, including nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam.

These substances have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade and are ubiquitous in the environment.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including PFAS, has been identified as a potential risk factor for thyroid cancer, with some research linking PFAS exposure to thyroid dysfunction and carcinogenesis.

To investigate further, the researchers performed a nested case-control study of 86 patients with thyroid cancer using plasma samples collected at or before diagnosis and 86 controls without cancer who were matched on age, sex, race/ethnicity, body weight, smoking status, and year of sample collection. 

Eighteen individual PFAS were measured in plasma samples; 10 were undetectable and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining eight PFAS, only one showed a statistically significant correlation with thyroid cancer. 

Specifically, the researchers found that exposure to n-PFOS was associated with a 56% increased risk for thyroid cancer among people who had a high level of the chemical in their blood (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; P = .004). The results were similar when patients with papillary thyroid cancer only were included (aOR, 1.56; P = .009).

A separate longitudinal analysis of 31 patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer 1 year or more after plasma sample collection and 31 controls confirmed the positive association between n-PFOS and thyroid cancer (aOR, 2.67; P < .001). The longitudinal analysis also suggested correlations for a few other PFAS.

“This study supports the hypothesis that PFAS exposure may be associated with increased risk of thyroid cancer,” the authors concluded.

But in a Substack post, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said that it’s important to put the findings into “proper context before getting terrified about this all-new cancer risk.”

First, this study was “genuinely tiny,” with data on just 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls, a limitation the researchers also acknowledged.

“That’s really not enough to do any sort of robust epidemiological analysis – you can generate interesting correlations, but what those correlations mean is anyone’s guess,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said.

Even more importantly, one could easily argue that the results of this study show that most PFAS aren’t associated with thyroid cancer, given that there was no strong association for seven of the eight PFAS measured, he explained.

“There are no serious methodological concerns here, but equally there’s just not much you can reasonably gather from finding a single correlation among a vast ocean of possibilities,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz wrote. “Maybe there’s a correlation there, but you’d need to investigate this in much bigger samples, with more controls, and better data, to understand what that correlation means.”

Bottom line, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz explained, is that “the link between PFAS and thyroid cancer is, at best, incredibly weak.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. One coauthor is cofounder of Linus Biotechnology and is owner of a license agreement with NIES (Japan); received honoraria and travel compensation for lectures for the Bio-Echo and Brin foundations; and has 22 patents at various stages. Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New evidence points to an association between exposure to “forever chemicals” and an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

The study suggests that higher exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS), may increase a person’s risk for thyroid cancer by 56%.

Several news outlets played up the findings, published online in eBioMedicine. “Dangerous ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Your Everyday Items Are Causing Cancer,” Newsweek reported.

But Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong (Australia), voiced his skepticism.

“While it’s possible that PFAS might be causing thyroid cancer, the evidence thus far is unconvincing and probably not worth worrying about,” said Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz, who was not involved in the research.
 

PFAS and thyroid cancer

PFAS are a class of widely used synthetic chemicals found in many consumer and industrial products, including nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam.

These substances have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade and are ubiquitous in the environment.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including PFAS, has been identified as a potential risk factor for thyroid cancer, with some research linking PFAS exposure to thyroid dysfunction and carcinogenesis.

To investigate further, the researchers performed a nested case-control study of 86 patients with thyroid cancer using plasma samples collected at or before diagnosis and 86 controls without cancer who were matched on age, sex, race/ethnicity, body weight, smoking status, and year of sample collection. 

Eighteen individual PFAS were measured in plasma samples; 10 were undetectable and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining eight PFAS, only one showed a statistically significant correlation with thyroid cancer. 

Specifically, the researchers found that exposure to n-PFOS was associated with a 56% increased risk for thyroid cancer among people who had a high level of the chemical in their blood (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; P = .004). The results were similar when patients with papillary thyroid cancer only were included (aOR, 1.56; P = .009).

A separate longitudinal analysis of 31 patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer 1 year or more after plasma sample collection and 31 controls confirmed the positive association between n-PFOS and thyroid cancer (aOR, 2.67; P < .001). The longitudinal analysis also suggested correlations for a few other PFAS.

“This study supports the hypothesis that PFAS exposure may be associated with increased risk of thyroid cancer,” the authors concluded.

But in a Substack post, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said that it’s important to put the findings into “proper context before getting terrified about this all-new cancer risk.”

First, this study was “genuinely tiny,” with data on just 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls, a limitation the researchers also acknowledged.

“That’s really not enough to do any sort of robust epidemiological analysis – you can generate interesting correlations, but what those correlations mean is anyone’s guess,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz said.

Even more importantly, one could easily argue that the results of this study show that most PFAS aren’t associated with thyroid cancer, given that there was no strong association for seven of the eight PFAS measured, he explained.

“There are no serious methodological concerns here, but equally there’s just not much you can reasonably gather from finding a single correlation among a vast ocean of possibilities,” Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz wrote. “Maybe there’s a correlation there, but you’d need to investigate this in much bigger samples, with more controls, and better data, to understand what that correlation means.”

Bottom line, Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz explained, is that “the link between PFAS and thyroid cancer is, at best, incredibly weak.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. One coauthor is cofounder of Linus Biotechnology and is owner of a license agreement with NIES (Japan); received honoraria and travel compensation for lectures for the Bio-Echo and Brin foundations; and has 22 patents at various stages. Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with aprocitentan, a novel agent currently under Food and Drug Administration review for lowering blood pressure in people with treatment-resistant hypertension, showed efficacy and safety in people with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD). The results come from a prespecified subgroup analysis of data collected in the drug’s pivotal trial, PRECISION.

The findings provide support for potentially using aprocitentan, if approved for U.S. marketing in 2024, in patients with blood pressure that remains elevated despite treatment with three established antihypertensive drug classes and with stage 3 CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min per 1.73 m². This is a key group of patients because “chronic kidney disease is the most common comorbidity in patients with resistant hypertension,” said George Bakris, MD, who presented the subgroup analysis at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mtchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD subgroup analysis showed “good evidence for safety and evidence in stage 3 CKD,” a subgroup of 141 patients among the total 730 enrolled in PRECISION, said Dr. Bakris. Professor and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago, he acknowledged that while the results also showed a signal for safety and efficacy in the 21 enrolled patients with stage 4 hypertension, 15-29 mL/min per 1.73m², this number of stage 4 patients was too small to allow definitive conclusions.

Nephrologist Nishigandha Pradhan, MD, who cochaired the session with this report, agreed. “Resistant hypertension is a particularly intractable problem in patients with CKD, and the risk is greatest with stage 4 CKD. If studies could show that aprocitentan is safe in people with stage 4 CKD, that would be a big plus, but we need more data,” commented Dr. Pradhan in an interview.
 

Incremental blood pressure reductions

The parallel-group, phase 3 PRECISION trial investigated the safety and short-term antihypertensive effect of aprocitentan in patients with resistant hypertension. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure reduction from baseline in 730 randomized people with persistent systolic hypertension despite treatment with three established antihypertensive agents including a diuretic. The study ran during June 2018–April 2022 at 191 sites in 22 countries.

The primary outcome after 4 weeks on treatment was a least-square mean reduction in office-measured systolic blood pressure, compared with placebo, of 3.8 mm Hg with a 12.5-mg daily oral dose of aprocitentan and 3.7 mm Hg with a 25-mg daily oral dose. Both significant differences were first reported in 2022. Twenty-four–hour ambulatory systolic blood pressures after 4 weeks of treatment fell by an average of 4.2 mm Hg on the lower dose compared with placebo and by an average of 5.9 mm Hg on the higher daily dose, compared with placebo.

Consistent blood pressure reductions occurred in the CKD subgroups. Among people with stage 3 CKD, daytime ambulatory blood pressure at 4 weeks fell by about 10 mm Hg on both the 12.5-mg daily and 25-mg daily doses, compared with placebo.

Among the small number of people with stage 4 CKD, the incremental nighttime systolic blood pressure on aprocitentan, compared with placebo, was even greater, with about a 15–mm Hg incremental reduction on 12.5 mg daily and about a 17–mm Hg incremental reduction on the higher dose.

“This is the first evidence for a change in nocturnal blood pressure in people with stage 4 CKD [and treatment-resistant hypertension], but it was just 21 patients so not yet a big deal,” Dr. Bakris noted.
 

Increased rates of fluid retention

Although aprocitentan was generally well tolerated, the most common adverse effect was edema or fluid retention, mainly during the first 4 weeks of treatment. In the full PRECISION cohort, this adverse event occurred in 2.1% of people treated with placebo, 9.1% of those on the 12.5-mg daily dose, and in 18.4% of those on the higher dose during the initial 4-week phase of treatment.

Among all stage 3 and 4 CKD patients on aprocitentan, edema or fluid retention occurred in 21% during the first 4 weeks, and in 27% during an additional 32 weeks of treatment with 25 mg aprocitentan daily. A majority of these patients started a diuretic to address their excess fluid, with only two discontinuing aprocitentan treatment.

“Fluid retention is an issue with aprocitentan,” Dr. Bakris acknowledged. But he also highlighted than only 6 of the 162 patients with CKD required hospitalization for heart failure during the study, and one of these cases had placebo treatment. Among the five with acute heart failure while on aprocitentan, none had to stop their treatment, and two had a clear prior history of heart failure.

The companies developing aprocitentan, Janssen and Idorsia, used the PRECISION results as the centerpiece in filing for a new drug approval to the FDA, with a March 2024 goal for the FDA‘s decision. Dr. Bakris called the application “a solid case for approval.” But he added that approval will likely require that all treatment candidates first undergo testing of their heart function or fluid volume, such as a measure of their blood level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, with treatment withheld when the level is too high.

The upside of aprocitentan compared with current drug options for treating resistant hypertension is that it has not appeared to cause any increase in blood potassium levels, which is an issue with the current top agent for resistant hypertension, spironolactone.

“The problem with spironolactone is the risk for hyperkalemia, which keeps us looking for something with lower risk,” commented Dr. Pradhan, a nephrologist with University Hospitals in Cleveland. Hyperkalemia is an even greater risk for people with CKD. Although the PRECISION trial identified the issue of fluid retention with aprocitentan, titrating an effective dose of a loop diuretic for treated patients may effectively blunt the edema risk, Dr. Pradhan said.

Endothelin has a potent vasoconstrictive effect and is “implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension,” Dr. Bakris explained. Aprocitentan antagonizes both the endothelin A and B receptors. The subgroup analyses also showed that in people with CKD, treatment with aprocitentan led to roughly a halving of the baseline level of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, a small and stable decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, and a modest and stable increase in blood levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic hormone.

The PRECISION trial was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, the companies jointly developing aprocitentan. Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to Janssen, and also a consultant to or honoraria recipient of Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dia Medica Therapeutics, Ionis, inREGEN, KBP Biosciences, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Quantum Genomics. Dr. Pradhan had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with aprocitentan, a novel agent currently under Food and Drug Administration review for lowering blood pressure in people with treatment-resistant hypertension, showed efficacy and safety in people with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD). The results come from a prespecified subgroup analysis of data collected in the drug’s pivotal trial, PRECISION.

The findings provide support for potentially using aprocitentan, if approved for U.S. marketing in 2024, in patients with blood pressure that remains elevated despite treatment with three established antihypertensive drug classes and with stage 3 CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min per 1.73 m². This is a key group of patients because “chronic kidney disease is the most common comorbidity in patients with resistant hypertension,” said George Bakris, MD, who presented the subgroup analysis at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mtchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD subgroup analysis showed “good evidence for safety and evidence in stage 3 CKD,” a subgroup of 141 patients among the total 730 enrolled in PRECISION, said Dr. Bakris. Professor and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago, he acknowledged that while the results also showed a signal for safety and efficacy in the 21 enrolled patients with stage 4 hypertension, 15-29 mL/min per 1.73m², this number of stage 4 patients was too small to allow definitive conclusions.

Nephrologist Nishigandha Pradhan, MD, who cochaired the session with this report, agreed. “Resistant hypertension is a particularly intractable problem in patients with CKD, and the risk is greatest with stage 4 CKD. If studies could show that aprocitentan is safe in people with stage 4 CKD, that would be a big plus, but we need more data,” commented Dr. Pradhan in an interview.
 

Incremental blood pressure reductions

The parallel-group, phase 3 PRECISION trial investigated the safety and short-term antihypertensive effect of aprocitentan in patients with resistant hypertension. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure reduction from baseline in 730 randomized people with persistent systolic hypertension despite treatment with three established antihypertensive agents including a diuretic. The study ran during June 2018–April 2022 at 191 sites in 22 countries.

The primary outcome after 4 weeks on treatment was a least-square mean reduction in office-measured systolic blood pressure, compared with placebo, of 3.8 mm Hg with a 12.5-mg daily oral dose of aprocitentan and 3.7 mm Hg with a 25-mg daily oral dose. Both significant differences were first reported in 2022. Twenty-four–hour ambulatory systolic blood pressures after 4 weeks of treatment fell by an average of 4.2 mm Hg on the lower dose compared with placebo and by an average of 5.9 mm Hg on the higher daily dose, compared with placebo.

Consistent blood pressure reductions occurred in the CKD subgroups. Among people with stage 3 CKD, daytime ambulatory blood pressure at 4 weeks fell by about 10 mm Hg on both the 12.5-mg daily and 25-mg daily doses, compared with placebo.

Among the small number of people with stage 4 CKD, the incremental nighttime systolic blood pressure on aprocitentan, compared with placebo, was even greater, with about a 15–mm Hg incremental reduction on 12.5 mg daily and about a 17–mm Hg incremental reduction on the higher dose.

“This is the first evidence for a change in nocturnal blood pressure in people with stage 4 CKD [and treatment-resistant hypertension], but it was just 21 patients so not yet a big deal,” Dr. Bakris noted.
 

Increased rates of fluid retention

Although aprocitentan was generally well tolerated, the most common adverse effect was edema or fluid retention, mainly during the first 4 weeks of treatment. In the full PRECISION cohort, this adverse event occurred in 2.1% of people treated with placebo, 9.1% of those on the 12.5-mg daily dose, and in 18.4% of those on the higher dose during the initial 4-week phase of treatment.

Among all stage 3 and 4 CKD patients on aprocitentan, edema or fluid retention occurred in 21% during the first 4 weeks, and in 27% during an additional 32 weeks of treatment with 25 mg aprocitentan daily. A majority of these patients started a diuretic to address their excess fluid, with only two discontinuing aprocitentan treatment.

“Fluid retention is an issue with aprocitentan,” Dr. Bakris acknowledged. But he also highlighted than only 6 of the 162 patients with CKD required hospitalization for heart failure during the study, and one of these cases had placebo treatment. Among the five with acute heart failure while on aprocitentan, none had to stop their treatment, and two had a clear prior history of heart failure.

The companies developing aprocitentan, Janssen and Idorsia, used the PRECISION results as the centerpiece in filing for a new drug approval to the FDA, with a March 2024 goal for the FDA‘s decision. Dr. Bakris called the application “a solid case for approval.” But he added that approval will likely require that all treatment candidates first undergo testing of their heart function or fluid volume, such as a measure of their blood level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, with treatment withheld when the level is too high.

The upside of aprocitentan compared with current drug options for treating resistant hypertension is that it has not appeared to cause any increase in blood potassium levels, which is an issue with the current top agent for resistant hypertension, spironolactone.

“The problem with spironolactone is the risk for hyperkalemia, which keeps us looking for something with lower risk,” commented Dr. Pradhan, a nephrologist with University Hospitals in Cleveland. Hyperkalemia is an even greater risk for people with CKD. Although the PRECISION trial identified the issue of fluid retention with aprocitentan, titrating an effective dose of a loop diuretic for treated patients may effectively blunt the edema risk, Dr. Pradhan said.

Endothelin has a potent vasoconstrictive effect and is “implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension,” Dr. Bakris explained. Aprocitentan antagonizes both the endothelin A and B receptors. The subgroup analyses also showed that in people with CKD, treatment with aprocitentan led to roughly a halving of the baseline level of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, a small and stable decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, and a modest and stable increase in blood levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic hormone.

The PRECISION trial was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, the companies jointly developing aprocitentan. Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to Janssen, and also a consultant to or honoraria recipient of Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dia Medica Therapeutics, Ionis, inREGEN, KBP Biosciences, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Quantum Genomics. Dr. Pradhan had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with aprocitentan, a novel agent currently under Food and Drug Administration review for lowering blood pressure in people with treatment-resistant hypertension, showed efficacy and safety in people with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD). The results come from a prespecified subgroup analysis of data collected in the drug’s pivotal trial, PRECISION.

The findings provide support for potentially using aprocitentan, if approved for U.S. marketing in 2024, in patients with blood pressure that remains elevated despite treatment with three established antihypertensive drug classes and with stage 3 CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min per 1.73 m². This is a key group of patients because “chronic kidney disease is the most common comorbidity in patients with resistant hypertension,” said George Bakris, MD, who presented the subgroup analysis at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mtchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD subgroup analysis showed “good evidence for safety and evidence in stage 3 CKD,” a subgroup of 141 patients among the total 730 enrolled in PRECISION, said Dr. Bakris. Professor and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago, he acknowledged that while the results also showed a signal for safety and efficacy in the 21 enrolled patients with stage 4 hypertension, 15-29 mL/min per 1.73m², this number of stage 4 patients was too small to allow definitive conclusions.

Nephrologist Nishigandha Pradhan, MD, who cochaired the session with this report, agreed. “Resistant hypertension is a particularly intractable problem in patients with CKD, and the risk is greatest with stage 4 CKD. If studies could show that aprocitentan is safe in people with stage 4 CKD, that would be a big plus, but we need more data,” commented Dr. Pradhan in an interview.
 

Incremental blood pressure reductions

The parallel-group, phase 3 PRECISION trial investigated the safety and short-term antihypertensive effect of aprocitentan in patients with resistant hypertension. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure reduction from baseline in 730 randomized people with persistent systolic hypertension despite treatment with three established antihypertensive agents including a diuretic. The study ran during June 2018–April 2022 at 191 sites in 22 countries.

The primary outcome after 4 weeks on treatment was a least-square mean reduction in office-measured systolic blood pressure, compared with placebo, of 3.8 mm Hg with a 12.5-mg daily oral dose of aprocitentan and 3.7 mm Hg with a 25-mg daily oral dose. Both significant differences were first reported in 2022. Twenty-four–hour ambulatory systolic blood pressures after 4 weeks of treatment fell by an average of 4.2 mm Hg on the lower dose compared with placebo and by an average of 5.9 mm Hg on the higher daily dose, compared with placebo.

Consistent blood pressure reductions occurred in the CKD subgroups. Among people with stage 3 CKD, daytime ambulatory blood pressure at 4 weeks fell by about 10 mm Hg on both the 12.5-mg daily and 25-mg daily doses, compared with placebo.

Among the small number of people with stage 4 CKD, the incremental nighttime systolic blood pressure on aprocitentan, compared with placebo, was even greater, with about a 15–mm Hg incremental reduction on 12.5 mg daily and about a 17–mm Hg incremental reduction on the higher dose.

“This is the first evidence for a change in nocturnal blood pressure in people with stage 4 CKD [and treatment-resistant hypertension], but it was just 21 patients so not yet a big deal,” Dr. Bakris noted.
 

Increased rates of fluid retention

Although aprocitentan was generally well tolerated, the most common adverse effect was edema or fluid retention, mainly during the first 4 weeks of treatment. In the full PRECISION cohort, this adverse event occurred in 2.1% of people treated with placebo, 9.1% of those on the 12.5-mg daily dose, and in 18.4% of those on the higher dose during the initial 4-week phase of treatment.

Among all stage 3 and 4 CKD patients on aprocitentan, edema or fluid retention occurred in 21% during the first 4 weeks, and in 27% during an additional 32 weeks of treatment with 25 mg aprocitentan daily. A majority of these patients started a diuretic to address their excess fluid, with only two discontinuing aprocitentan treatment.

“Fluid retention is an issue with aprocitentan,” Dr. Bakris acknowledged. But he also highlighted than only 6 of the 162 patients with CKD required hospitalization for heart failure during the study, and one of these cases had placebo treatment. Among the five with acute heart failure while on aprocitentan, none had to stop their treatment, and two had a clear prior history of heart failure.

The companies developing aprocitentan, Janssen and Idorsia, used the PRECISION results as the centerpiece in filing for a new drug approval to the FDA, with a March 2024 goal for the FDA‘s decision. Dr. Bakris called the application “a solid case for approval.” But he added that approval will likely require that all treatment candidates first undergo testing of their heart function or fluid volume, such as a measure of their blood level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, with treatment withheld when the level is too high.

The upside of aprocitentan compared with current drug options for treating resistant hypertension is that it has not appeared to cause any increase in blood potassium levels, which is an issue with the current top agent for resistant hypertension, spironolactone.

“The problem with spironolactone is the risk for hyperkalemia, which keeps us looking for something with lower risk,” commented Dr. Pradhan, a nephrologist with University Hospitals in Cleveland. Hyperkalemia is an even greater risk for people with CKD. Although the PRECISION trial identified the issue of fluid retention with aprocitentan, titrating an effective dose of a loop diuretic for treated patients may effectively blunt the edema risk, Dr. Pradhan said.

Endothelin has a potent vasoconstrictive effect and is “implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension,” Dr. Bakris explained. Aprocitentan antagonizes both the endothelin A and B receptors. The subgroup analyses also showed that in people with CKD, treatment with aprocitentan led to roughly a halving of the baseline level of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, a small and stable decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, and a modest and stable increase in blood levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic hormone.

The PRECISION trial was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, the companies jointly developing aprocitentan. Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to Janssen, and also a consultant to or honoraria recipient of Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dia Medica Therapeutics, Ionis, inREGEN, KBP Biosciences, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Quantum Genomics. Dr. Pradhan had no disclosures.