Clinician Reviews

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.

Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health. 

The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time. 

“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.

The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death. 

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting. 

A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin. 

Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers. 

The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”  

Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
 

Limitations

Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.

“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.

The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said. 

One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.

What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
 

Impact on patient care

That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.

If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion. 

More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most. 

You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them. 

Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.

The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice. 

“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.

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

Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.

Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health. 

The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time. 

“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.

The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death. 

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting. 

A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin. 

Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers. 

The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”  

Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
 

Limitations

Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.

“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.

The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said. 

One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.

What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
 

Impact on patient care

That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.

If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion. 

More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most. 

You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them. 

Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.

The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice. 

“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.

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

Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.

Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health. 

The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time. 

“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.

The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death. 

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting. 

A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin. 

Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers. 

The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”  

Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
 

Limitations

Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.

“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.

The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said. 

One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.

What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
 

Impact on patient care

That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.

If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion. 

More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most. 

You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them. 

Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.

The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice. 

“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.

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

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches. Several recent controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the possibility of a cardioprotective and nephroprotective effect, even in patients without diabetes, especially with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D

What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?

These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.

Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
 

Real-world benefits – Even better when combined

The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:

All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).

Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).

Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).

A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).

This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches. Several recent controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the possibility of a cardioprotective and nephroprotective effect, even in patients without diabetes, especially with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D

What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?

These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.

Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
 

Real-world benefits – Even better when combined

The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:

All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).

Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).

Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).

A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).

This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches. Several recent controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the possibility of a cardioprotective and nephroprotective effect, even in patients without diabetes, especially with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D

What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?

These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.

Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
 

Real-world benefits – Even better when combined

The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:

All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).

Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).

Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).

A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).

This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes who have a positive sense of humor appear to have better diabetes control, according to a series of studies that also show patients can be successfully taught to have a more positive and light-hearted approach.

David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.

This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
 

Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?

Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.

For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.

While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.

My new research agenda was born.
 

Q: What did your research reveal?

A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.

This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.

While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.

My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor. 

The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.

Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
 

Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?

A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.

Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.

Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.

The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
 

Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?

A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.

While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.

I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.

I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.

Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
 

Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?

A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.

Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
 

Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?

A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.

Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes who have a positive sense of humor appear to have better diabetes control, according to a series of studies that also show patients can be successfully taught to have a more positive and light-hearted approach.

David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.

This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
 

Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?

Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.

For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.

While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.

My new research agenda was born.
 

Q: What did your research reveal?

A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.

This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.

While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.

My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor. 

The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.

Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
 

Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?

A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.

Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.

Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.

The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
 

Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?

A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.

While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.

I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.

I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.

Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
 

Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?

A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.

Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
 

Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?

A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.

Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes who have a positive sense of humor appear to have better diabetes control, according to a series of studies that also show patients can be successfully taught to have a more positive and light-hearted approach.

David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.

This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
 

Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?

Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.

For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.

While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.

My new research agenda was born.
 

Q: What did your research reveal?

A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.

This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.

While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.

My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor. 

The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.

Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
 

Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?

A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.

Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.

Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.

The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
 

Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?

A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.

While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.

I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.

I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.

Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
 

Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?

A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.

Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
 

Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?

A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.

Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who followed a low-salt diet for just a week experienced a reduction in systolic blood pressure of about 6 mm Hg, in a new study.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.

“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.

“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”

Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.

Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.

“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.

The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.

“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”

For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.

As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.

Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.

The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.

“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.

He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.

For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
 

Large effect in people with diabetes

Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.

The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.

Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.

“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”

To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.

“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
 

Difficult to maintain long term

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.

He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”

“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”

Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”

He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
 

New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines

Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.

“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”

Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.

“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who followed a low-salt diet for just a week experienced a reduction in systolic blood pressure of about 6 mm Hg, in a new study.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.

“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.

“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”

Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.

Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.

“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.

The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.

“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”

For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.

As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.

Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.

The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.

“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.

He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.

For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
 

Large effect in people with diabetes

Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.

The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.

Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.

“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”

To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.

“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
 

Difficult to maintain long term

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.

He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”

“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”

Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”

He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
 

New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines

Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.

“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”

Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.

“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who followed a low-salt diet for just a week experienced a reduction in systolic blood pressure of about 6 mm Hg, in a new study.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.

“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.

“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”

Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.

Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.

“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.

The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.

“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”

For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.

As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.

Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.

The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.

“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.

He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.

For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
 

Large effect in people with diabetes

Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.

The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.

Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.

“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”

To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.

“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
 

Difficult to maintain long term

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.

He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”

“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”

Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”

He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
 

New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines

Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.

“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”

Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.

“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

People with diabetes had a 47% increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared with people without diabetes, according to results of a large new study. Getting a colonoscopy dramatically reduced the risk, the results showed.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest that colonoscopies are particularly important for people with diabetes. People diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years have the greatest colorectal cancer risk, the study found, suggesting screening should be part of a person’s health care after they’re diagnosed with diabetes.

Researchers analyzed data for 54,597 people who contributed at least 2 years of health data as part of a study that recruited people from 12 Southeastern states between 2002 and 2009. The people self-reported their diabetes status, and although researchers tried to only include people with type 2 diabetes, it’s possible that some people in the study had type 1 diabetes. The average age of those in the study was 51 years old; 64% were women; more than half of them had an income of less than $15,000 per year; and 66% of them were African American. 

Among the people in the study who had diabetes, the risk of having colorectal cancer was not strongly impacted by their race or ethnicity, gender, weight, or income level, the study showed.

While race didn’t predict whether people with diabetes would get colorectal cancer, the findings are particularly important because most of the people in the study were African American. Diabetes and colorectal cancer disproportionately affect African American people, the authors noted. Medical research studies often struggle to recruit people of color, resulting in a lack of data to help guide health care priorities and decision-making.

The study also provided important guidance for people newly diagnosed with diabetes. People who were diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years were at a particularly increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared to people who had been diagnosed for 5-10 years.

The authors concluded that increased referrals for colonoscopies among people with diabetes, particularly among those newly diagnosed, could greatly reduce the impact of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines suggest most people should begin colorectal cancer screenings at age 45, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The study authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with diabetes had a 47% increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared with people without diabetes, according to results of a large new study. Getting a colonoscopy dramatically reduced the risk, the results showed.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest that colonoscopies are particularly important for people with diabetes. People diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years have the greatest colorectal cancer risk, the study found, suggesting screening should be part of a person’s health care after they’re diagnosed with diabetes.

Researchers analyzed data for 54,597 people who contributed at least 2 years of health data as part of a study that recruited people from 12 Southeastern states between 2002 and 2009. The people self-reported their diabetes status, and although researchers tried to only include people with type 2 diabetes, it’s possible that some people in the study had type 1 diabetes. The average age of those in the study was 51 years old; 64% were women; more than half of them had an income of less than $15,000 per year; and 66% of them were African American. 

Among the people in the study who had diabetes, the risk of having colorectal cancer was not strongly impacted by their race or ethnicity, gender, weight, or income level, the study showed.

While race didn’t predict whether people with diabetes would get colorectal cancer, the findings are particularly important because most of the people in the study were African American. Diabetes and colorectal cancer disproportionately affect African American people, the authors noted. Medical research studies often struggle to recruit people of color, resulting in a lack of data to help guide health care priorities and decision-making.

The study also provided important guidance for people newly diagnosed with diabetes. People who were diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years were at a particularly increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared to people who had been diagnosed for 5-10 years.

The authors concluded that increased referrals for colonoscopies among people with diabetes, particularly among those newly diagnosed, could greatly reduce the impact of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines suggest most people should begin colorectal cancer screenings at age 45, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The study authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with diabetes had a 47% increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared with people without diabetes, according to results of a large new study. Getting a colonoscopy dramatically reduced the risk, the results showed.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest that colonoscopies are particularly important for people with diabetes. People diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years have the greatest colorectal cancer risk, the study found, suggesting screening should be part of a person’s health care after they’re diagnosed with diabetes.

Researchers analyzed data for 54,597 people who contributed at least 2 years of health data as part of a study that recruited people from 12 Southeastern states between 2002 and 2009. The people self-reported their diabetes status, and although researchers tried to only include people with type 2 diabetes, it’s possible that some people in the study had type 1 diabetes. The average age of those in the study was 51 years old; 64% were women; more than half of them had an income of less than $15,000 per year; and 66% of them were African American. 

Among the people in the study who had diabetes, the risk of having colorectal cancer was not strongly impacted by their race or ethnicity, gender, weight, or income level, the study showed.

While race didn’t predict whether people with diabetes would get colorectal cancer, the findings are particularly important because most of the people in the study were African American. Diabetes and colorectal cancer disproportionately affect African American people, the authors noted. Medical research studies often struggle to recruit people of color, resulting in a lack of data to help guide health care priorities and decision-making.

The study also provided important guidance for people newly diagnosed with diabetes. People who were diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years were at a particularly increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared to people who had been diagnosed for 5-10 years.

The authors concluded that increased referrals for colonoscopies among people with diabetes, particularly among those newly diagnosed, could greatly reduce the impact of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines suggest most people should begin colorectal cancer screenings at age 45, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The study authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The Diagnosis: Tinea Capitis

Dermoscopy revealed many black spot signs with broken, corkscrew, and comma hairs, as well as increased single hair follicles and focal polymorphic vascular distribution in the scalp (Figure 1). Fungal microscopy showed large round spores within the hair. A fungal culture demonstrated Trichophyton tonsurans growth in the broken hair. Based on the clinical presentation and laboratory findings, a diagnosis of tinea capitis was rendered. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d was prescribed. At 4-week follow-up, the patient did not report worsening or new symptoms, and there was visible evidence of hair regrowth (Figure 2). There has been no sign of recurrence.

According to the most recent set of classification criteria published by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) International Collaborating Clinics, nonscarring alopecia is now a diagnostic criterion for SLE that has a specificity of 95.7%.¹ Although discoid lupus erythematosus presents with diffuse scarring alopecia, SLE manifests as nonscarring alopecia in 1 of 3 patterns: diffuse, patchy, or “lupus hair.”² It is commonly believed that lupus-related alopecia is a nonspecific symptom of SLE exacerbation and signals that the disease is active.³ Our patient had a history of SLE with no pruritus or pain accompanying the hair loss; however, we considered hair loss due to SLE disease activity, and dermoscopic examination was performed to further rule out the likelihood of SLE alopecia. The dermoscopic characteristics of lupus-related alopecia and tinea capitis vary. For lupusrelated alopecia, alterations to the hair shaft are visible with dermoscopy, including a reduced number or smaller diameter of hairs, hypopigmentation, the black dot sign, brown scattered pigmentation, blue-gray pigmentation, and thick dendritic capillaries.² Tinea capitis typically displays characteristic dermoscopic manifestations, such as comma, corkscrew, Morse code–like, or jagged hair; black spots; and broken hair.⁴

Included in the differential diagnosis, androgenetic alopecia dermoscopic findings include hair diameter diversity, perifollicular pigmentation/peripilar sign, and yellow dots.⁵ The most common vascular patterns present in seborrheic dermatitis are arborizing red lines, twisted red loops, atypical vessels, and glomerular vessels. Perifollicular scaling may be white or yellow and oily.⁶ There are no specific dermoscopic findings for telogen effluvium; however, the presence of hair regrowth and the predominance of follicular openings with a single sprouting hair shaft may suggest this condition.⁷ Therefore, dermoscopy can assist clinicians in correctly diagnosing a patient’s condition and determining the its etiology, allowing for early and effective treatment.

Tinea capitis is a typical superficial dermatophyte infection that commonly occurs in prepubescent children and is uncommon in adults because the pH level of the scalp shifts during puberty and the amount of sebum that contains saturated fatty acids increases.⁸ The risk for developing tinea capitis is higher in certain individuals with comorbid systemic immune diseases, such as SLE and diabetes mellitus, among others, as well as in immunocompromised individuals, such as those with AIDS, organ transplant recipients, or patients receiving high doses of steroids or immunosuppressive drugs.⁹ The type of dermatophyte entering the hair, the level of host resistance, and the intensity of the inflammatory reaction all affect the clinical picture of tinea capitis in adults, which is pleomorphic and atypical.¹⁰ Although tinea capitis is not highly prevalent in adults, the fact that our patient had SLE and had been on immunosuppressive therapy to keep the condition stable increased the chance of contracting tinea capitis, underscoring the need for clinicians to be alert for fungal infections in this patient population.

Trichophyton tonsurans is the most prevalent form of microorganism that causes tinea capitis in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. However, T tonsurans causing tinea capitis is uncommon in China, with one study reporting only 6 cases from 2000 to 2019.¹¹ Tinea capitis caused by T tonsurans typically presents as black spot alopecia with inflammatory erythema and scaling of the scalp.¹² Because most T tonsurans infections have few clinical symptoms, it is challenging to make a clinical diagnosis.¹³ Although not performed in our patient, a potassium hydroxide preparation and direct microscopic inspection of the afflicted hair and scales can help in quickly identifying and treating these infections. Additional fungal cultures can precisely identify the strain and trace its epidemiology, which is clinically significant not only to identify the potential infection source but also to direct the selection of an organized treatment plan.

The Diagnosis: Tinea Capitis

Dermoscopy revealed many black spot signs with broken, corkscrew, and comma hairs, as well as increased single hair follicles and focal polymorphic vascular distribution in the scalp (Figure 1). Fungal microscopy showed large round spores within the hair. A fungal culture demonstrated Trichophyton tonsurans growth in the broken hair. Based on the clinical presentation and laboratory findings, a diagnosis of tinea capitis was rendered. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d was prescribed. At 4-week follow-up, the patient did not report worsening or new symptoms, and there was visible evidence of hair regrowth (Figure 2). There has been no sign of recurrence.

According to the most recent set of classification criteria published by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) International Collaborating Clinics, nonscarring alopecia is now a diagnostic criterion for SLE that has a specificity of 95.7%.¹ Although discoid lupus erythematosus presents with diffuse scarring alopecia, SLE manifests as nonscarring alopecia in 1 of 3 patterns: diffuse, patchy, or “lupus hair.”² It is commonly believed that lupus-related alopecia is a nonspecific symptom of SLE exacerbation and signals that the disease is active.³ Our patient had a history of SLE with no pruritus or pain accompanying the hair loss; however, we considered hair loss due to SLE disease activity, and dermoscopic examination was performed to further rule out the likelihood of SLE alopecia. The dermoscopic characteristics of lupus-related alopecia and tinea capitis vary. For lupusrelated alopecia, alterations to the hair shaft are visible with dermoscopy, including a reduced number or smaller diameter of hairs, hypopigmentation, the black dot sign, brown scattered pigmentation, blue-gray pigmentation, and thick dendritic capillaries.² Tinea capitis typically displays characteristic dermoscopic manifestations, such as comma, corkscrew, Morse code–like, or jagged hair; black spots; and broken hair.⁴

Included in the differential diagnosis, androgenetic alopecia dermoscopic findings include hair diameter diversity, perifollicular pigmentation/peripilar sign, and yellow dots.⁵ The most common vascular patterns present in seborrheic dermatitis are arborizing red lines, twisted red loops, atypical vessels, and glomerular vessels. Perifollicular scaling may be white or yellow and oily.⁶ There are no specific dermoscopic findings for telogen effluvium; however, the presence of hair regrowth and the predominance of follicular openings with a single sprouting hair shaft may suggest this condition.⁷ Therefore, dermoscopy can assist clinicians in correctly diagnosing a patient’s condition and determining the its etiology, allowing for early and effective treatment.

Tinea capitis is a typical superficial dermatophyte infection that commonly occurs in prepubescent children and is uncommon in adults because the pH level of the scalp shifts during puberty and the amount of sebum that contains saturated fatty acids increases.⁸ The risk for developing tinea capitis is higher in certain individuals with comorbid systemic immune diseases, such as SLE and diabetes mellitus, among others, as well as in immunocompromised individuals, such as those with AIDS, organ transplant recipients, or patients receiving high doses of steroids or immunosuppressive drugs.⁹ The type of dermatophyte entering the hair, the level of host resistance, and the intensity of the inflammatory reaction all affect the clinical picture of tinea capitis in adults, which is pleomorphic and atypical.¹⁰ Although tinea capitis is not highly prevalent in adults, the fact that our patient had SLE and had been on immunosuppressive therapy to keep the condition stable increased the chance of contracting tinea capitis, underscoring the need for clinicians to be alert for fungal infections in this patient population.

Trichophyton tonsurans is the most prevalent form of microorganism that causes tinea capitis in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. However, T tonsurans causing tinea capitis is uncommon in China, with one study reporting only 6 cases from 2000 to 2019.¹¹ Tinea capitis caused by T tonsurans typically presents as black spot alopecia with inflammatory erythema and scaling of the scalp.¹² Because most T tonsurans infections have few clinical symptoms, it is challenging to make a clinical diagnosis.¹³ Although not performed in our patient, a potassium hydroxide preparation and direct microscopic inspection of the afflicted hair and scales can help in quickly identifying and treating these infections. Additional fungal cultures can precisely identify the strain and trace its epidemiology, which is clinically significant not only to identify the potential infection source but also to direct the selection of an organized treatment plan.

The Diagnosis: Tinea Capitis

Dermoscopy revealed many black spot signs with broken, corkscrew, and comma hairs, as well as increased single hair follicles and focal polymorphic vascular distribution in the scalp (Figure 1). Fungal microscopy showed large round spores within the hair. A fungal culture demonstrated Trichophyton tonsurans growth in the broken hair. Based on the clinical presentation and laboratory findings, a diagnosis of tinea capitis was rendered. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d was prescribed. At 4-week follow-up, the patient did not report worsening or new symptoms, and there was visible evidence of hair regrowth (Figure 2). There has been no sign of recurrence.

According to the most recent set of classification criteria published by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) International Collaborating Clinics, nonscarring alopecia is now a diagnostic criterion for SLE that has a specificity of 95.7%.¹ Although discoid lupus erythematosus presents with diffuse scarring alopecia, SLE manifests as nonscarring alopecia in 1 of 3 patterns: diffuse, patchy, or “lupus hair.”² It is commonly believed that lupus-related alopecia is a nonspecific symptom of SLE exacerbation and signals that the disease is active.³ Our patient had a history of SLE with no pruritus or pain accompanying the hair loss; however, we considered hair loss due to SLE disease activity, and dermoscopic examination was performed to further rule out the likelihood of SLE alopecia. The dermoscopic characteristics of lupus-related alopecia and tinea capitis vary. For lupusrelated alopecia, alterations to the hair shaft are visible with dermoscopy, including a reduced number or smaller diameter of hairs, hypopigmentation, the black dot sign, brown scattered pigmentation, blue-gray pigmentation, and thick dendritic capillaries.² Tinea capitis typically displays characteristic dermoscopic manifestations, such as comma, corkscrew, Morse code–like, or jagged hair; black spots; and broken hair.⁴

Included in the differential diagnosis, androgenetic alopecia dermoscopic findings include hair diameter diversity, perifollicular pigmentation/peripilar sign, and yellow dots.⁵ The most common vascular patterns present in seborrheic dermatitis are arborizing red lines, twisted red loops, atypical vessels, and glomerular vessels. Perifollicular scaling may be white or yellow and oily.⁶ There are no specific dermoscopic findings for telogen effluvium; however, the presence of hair regrowth and the predominance of follicular openings with a single sprouting hair shaft may suggest this condition.⁷ Therefore, dermoscopy can assist clinicians in correctly diagnosing a patient’s condition and determining the its etiology, allowing for early and effective treatment.

Tinea capitis is a typical superficial dermatophyte infection that commonly occurs in prepubescent children and is uncommon in adults because the pH level of the scalp shifts during puberty and the amount of sebum that contains saturated fatty acids increases.⁸ The risk for developing tinea capitis is higher in certain individuals with comorbid systemic immune diseases, such as SLE and diabetes mellitus, among others, as well as in immunocompromised individuals, such as those with AIDS, organ transplant recipients, or patients receiving high doses of steroids or immunosuppressive drugs.⁹ The type of dermatophyte entering the hair, the level of host resistance, and the intensity of the inflammatory reaction all affect the clinical picture of tinea capitis in adults, which is pleomorphic and atypical.¹⁰ Although tinea capitis is not highly prevalent in adults, the fact that our patient had SLE and had been on immunosuppressive therapy to keep the condition stable increased the chance of contracting tinea capitis, underscoring the need for clinicians to be alert for fungal infections in this patient population.

Trichophyton tonsurans is the most prevalent form of microorganism that causes tinea capitis in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. However, T tonsurans causing tinea capitis is uncommon in China, with one study reporting only 6 cases from 2000 to 2019.¹¹ Tinea capitis caused by T tonsurans typically presents as black spot alopecia with inflammatory erythema and scaling of the scalp.¹² Because most T tonsurans infections have few clinical symptoms, it is challenging to make a clinical diagnosis.¹³ Although not performed in our patient, a potassium hydroxide preparation and direct microscopic inspection of the afflicted hair and scales can help in quickly identifying and treating these infections. Additional fungal cultures can precisely identify the strain and trace its epidemiology, which is clinically significant not only to identify the potential infection source but also to direct the selection of an organized treatment plan.

SAN FRANCISCO – A large observational registry study of almost 100,000 eyes has found that the diabetes drug semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist recently approved for weight loss, does not worsen the progression of potentially vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in the long term in patients taking the drug. However, the researchers said, the findings do not obviate the need for providers to have a conversation about the potential risks to vision posed by the drug.

“In patients that have either no or early or relatively nonadvanced diabetic retinopathy, the absolute risk of having a worsening in their retinopathy is variable,” Zeeshan Haq, MD, a retina specialist at Retinal Consultants of Minnesota, told this news organization. Dr. Hag presented the findings Nov. 3 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Based on this preliminary evidence and what we know so far, it suggests that there is a risk of worsening, but it’s quite low for most patients, and so a conversation needs to be had between anyone considering prescribing the drug, such as a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner, and that patient’s optometrist or comprehensive ophthalmologist or retina specialist.”
 

Methodology and results

Dr. Haq reported on a retrospective case series of 96,462 eyes from the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. Patients had type 2 diabetes and began taking injectable semaglutide between January 2013 and December 2021.

The study evaluated eyes with three levels of retinopathy:

• No retinopathy or background retinopathy (71.8%).
• Mild or moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (18.4%).
• Severe NPDR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (9.8%).

In eyes with no or background retinopathy, 1.3%, 1.2%, 1.6%, and 2.2% experienced a worsening in status of the condition at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

In eyes with mild or moderate NPDR, 2.4%, 3%, 3.4%, and 3.5% showed worsening retinopathy at the respective time intervals.

Improvement of retinopathy rather than worsening was evaluated in the eyes with severe NPDR or PDR. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, improvement was observed in 40%, 37.8%, 47.7%, and 58.7% of these eyes, respectively.

Most patients were aged 51-75 years (77.2%), female (55.0%), and White (63.8%).

The study found low rates of the following complications across the same time intervals: vitreous hemorrhage (from 0.1% to 0.15%); traction retinal detachment (0.02% to 0.05%); and neovascular glaucoma (0.03% to –0.04%), Dr. Haq reported.

Dr. Haq noted that understanding the possible consequences that semaglutide has on vision is important as the drug becomes more widely available for both diabetes and weight control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes; 28.7 million cases have been diagnosed, and 8.5 million are undiagnosed.
 

Clinical implications

“Any patient in the United States with diabetes has to undergo screening for diabetic eye disease, and so they’re usually plugged into the eye-care system,” Dr. Haq said. “But if they’re going to be starting this drug and they don’t have any existing diabetic retinopathy, the discussion should be had between their doctor and the eye-care provider, and if they do have a history of DR, an evaluation with the eye-care provider should probably happen upon starting the drug.”

Vaidehi Dedania, MD, a retina specialist at NYU Langone Health in New York, said the findings underscore the importance of counseling patients who are taking semaglutide about potential vision outcomes.

“We know that when patients get rapid control of their diabetes, their diabetic retinopathy can worsen in the short term, although it always ends up doing better in long term anyway,” Dr. Dedania said in an interview. “We always educate our patients that if they get control of the diabetes to not feel discouraged if their diabetic retinopathy worsens despite getting good control, because we know in the long run it always get better.”

The new findings, however, may have masked some worsening of retinopathy because of how the researchers categorized the condition. “It’s hard to assess changes within a designation because they’re so broad,” Dr. Dedania said.

She also noted potential limitations with the IRIS database itself. “The data collected from it are not always as complete as you might need for the purpose of understanding this, so that’s a limitation,” she said. While the high number of patients is a strength of the study, she added, “I still think the limitations are pretty significant.”

Dr. Haq has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dedania has relationships with Genentech/Roche and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – A large observational registry study of almost 100,000 eyes has found that the diabetes drug semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist recently approved for weight loss, does not worsen the progression of potentially vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in the long term in patients taking the drug. However, the researchers said, the findings do not obviate the need for providers to have a conversation about the potential risks to vision posed by the drug.

“In patients that have either no or early or relatively nonadvanced diabetic retinopathy, the absolute risk of having a worsening in their retinopathy is variable,” Zeeshan Haq, MD, a retina specialist at Retinal Consultants of Minnesota, told this news organization. Dr. Hag presented the findings Nov. 3 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Based on this preliminary evidence and what we know so far, it suggests that there is a risk of worsening, but it’s quite low for most patients, and so a conversation needs to be had between anyone considering prescribing the drug, such as a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner, and that patient’s optometrist or comprehensive ophthalmologist or retina specialist.”
 

Methodology and results

Dr. Haq reported on a retrospective case series of 96,462 eyes from the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. Patients had type 2 diabetes and began taking injectable semaglutide between January 2013 and December 2021.

The study evaluated eyes with three levels of retinopathy:

• No retinopathy or background retinopathy (71.8%).
• Mild or moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (18.4%).
• Severe NPDR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (9.8%).

In eyes with no or background retinopathy, 1.3%, 1.2%, 1.6%, and 2.2% experienced a worsening in status of the condition at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

In eyes with mild or moderate NPDR, 2.4%, 3%, 3.4%, and 3.5% showed worsening retinopathy at the respective time intervals.

Improvement of retinopathy rather than worsening was evaluated in the eyes with severe NPDR or PDR. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, improvement was observed in 40%, 37.8%, 47.7%, and 58.7% of these eyes, respectively.

Most patients were aged 51-75 years (77.2%), female (55.0%), and White (63.8%).

The study found low rates of the following complications across the same time intervals: vitreous hemorrhage (from 0.1% to 0.15%); traction retinal detachment (0.02% to 0.05%); and neovascular glaucoma (0.03% to –0.04%), Dr. Haq reported.

Dr. Haq noted that understanding the possible consequences that semaglutide has on vision is important as the drug becomes more widely available for both diabetes and weight control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes; 28.7 million cases have been diagnosed, and 8.5 million are undiagnosed.
 

Clinical implications

“Any patient in the United States with diabetes has to undergo screening for diabetic eye disease, and so they’re usually plugged into the eye-care system,” Dr. Haq said. “But if they’re going to be starting this drug and they don’t have any existing diabetic retinopathy, the discussion should be had between their doctor and the eye-care provider, and if they do have a history of DR, an evaluation with the eye-care provider should probably happen upon starting the drug.”

Vaidehi Dedania, MD, a retina specialist at NYU Langone Health in New York, said the findings underscore the importance of counseling patients who are taking semaglutide about potential vision outcomes.

“We know that when patients get rapid control of their diabetes, their diabetic retinopathy can worsen in the short term, although it always ends up doing better in long term anyway,” Dr. Dedania said in an interview. “We always educate our patients that if they get control of the diabetes to not feel discouraged if their diabetic retinopathy worsens despite getting good control, because we know in the long run it always get better.”

The new findings, however, may have masked some worsening of retinopathy because of how the researchers categorized the condition. “It’s hard to assess changes within a designation because they’re so broad,” Dr. Dedania said.

She also noted potential limitations with the IRIS database itself. “The data collected from it are not always as complete as you might need for the purpose of understanding this, so that’s a limitation,” she said. While the high number of patients is a strength of the study, she added, “I still think the limitations are pretty significant.”

Dr. Haq has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dedania has relationships with Genentech/Roche and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – A large observational registry study of almost 100,000 eyes has found that the diabetes drug semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist recently approved for weight loss, does not worsen the progression of potentially vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in the long term in patients taking the drug. However, the researchers said, the findings do not obviate the need for providers to have a conversation about the potential risks to vision posed by the drug.

“In patients that have either no or early or relatively nonadvanced diabetic retinopathy, the absolute risk of having a worsening in their retinopathy is variable,” Zeeshan Haq, MD, a retina specialist at Retinal Consultants of Minnesota, told this news organization. Dr. Hag presented the findings Nov. 3 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Based on this preliminary evidence and what we know so far, it suggests that there is a risk of worsening, but it’s quite low for most patients, and so a conversation needs to be had between anyone considering prescribing the drug, such as a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner, and that patient’s optometrist or comprehensive ophthalmologist or retina specialist.”
 

Methodology and results

Dr. Haq reported on a retrospective case series of 96,462 eyes from the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. Patients had type 2 diabetes and began taking injectable semaglutide between January 2013 and December 2021.

The study evaluated eyes with three levels of retinopathy:

• No retinopathy or background retinopathy (71.8%).
• Mild or moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (18.4%).
• Severe NPDR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (9.8%).

In eyes with no or background retinopathy, 1.3%, 1.2%, 1.6%, and 2.2% experienced a worsening in status of the condition at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

In eyes with mild or moderate NPDR, 2.4%, 3%, 3.4%, and 3.5% showed worsening retinopathy at the respective time intervals.

Improvement of retinopathy rather than worsening was evaluated in the eyes with severe NPDR or PDR. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, improvement was observed in 40%, 37.8%, 47.7%, and 58.7% of these eyes, respectively.

Most patients were aged 51-75 years (77.2%), female (55.0%), and White (63.8%).

The study found low rates of the following complications across the same time intervals: vitreous hemorrhage (from 0.1% to 0.15%); traction retinal detachment (0.02% to 0.05%); and neovascular glaucoma (0.03% to –0.04%), Dr. Haq reported.

Dr. Haq noted that understanding the possible consequences that semaglutide has on vision is important as the drug becomes more widely available for both diabetes and weight control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes; 28.7 million cases have been diagnosed, and 8.5 million are undiagnosed.
 

Clinical implications

“Any patient in the United States with diabetes has to undergo screening for diabetic eye disease, and so they’re usually plugged into the eye-care system,” Dr. Haq said. “But if they’re going to be starting this drug and they don’t have any existing diabetic retinopathy, the discussion should be had between their doctor and the eye-care provider, and if they do have a history of DR, an evaluation with the eye-care provider should probably happen upon starting the drug.”

Vaidehi Dedania, MD, a retina specialist at NYU Langone Health in New York, said the findings underscore the importance of counseling patients who are taking semaglutide about potential vision outcomes.

“We know that when patients get rapid control of their diabetes, their diabetic retinopathy can worsen in the short term, although it always ends up doing better in long term anyway,” Dr. Dedania said in an interview. “We always educate our patients that if they get control of the diabetes to not feel discouraged if their diabetic retinopathy worsens despite getting good control, because we know in the long run it always get better.”

The new findings, however, may have masked some worsening of retinopathy because of how the researchers categorized the condition. “It’s hard to assess changes within a designation because they’re so broad,” Dr. Dedania said.

She also noted potential limitations with the IRIS database itself. “The data collected from it are not always as complete as you might need for the purpose of understanding this, so that’s a limitation,” she said. While the high number of patients is a strength of the study, she added, “I still think the limitations are pretty significant.”

Dr. Haq has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dedania has relationships with Genentech/Roche and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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