Clinician Reviews

TOPLINE:

For adults with suspected celiac disease who do not have immunoglobulin A (IgA) deficiency, diagnostic bowel biopsy can most likely be avoided if the serum antitissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA) level is high.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the reliability of serum tests for diagnosing celiac disease, as defined by duodenal villous atrophy (Marsh type 3 or Corazza-Villanacci grade B).
• The main study cohort included 436 adults with suspected celiac disease who did not have IgA deficiency and who were not on a gluten-free diet (mean age, 40 years; 68% women). The patients were referred by 14 centers across four continents to undergo local endoscopic duodenal biopsy.
• Local serum tTG-IgA was measured with 14 test brands. Concentration was expressed as a multiple of each test’s upper limit of normal (ULN). Tests were defined as positive when they exceeded one times the ULN.
• Histology was assessed by the local pathologist, and discordant cases were reevaluated by a central pathologist.

TAKEAWAY:

• Positive serum tTG-IgA was detected in 363 (83%) participants; negative serum tTG-IgA was detected in 73 (17%).
• After local review, 341 of the participants with positive serum tTG-IgA had positive histology (true positives) and 22 had negative histology (false positives).
• Of the 73 participants with negative serum tTG-IgA, 66 had negative histology (true negatives) and 7 had positive histology (false negatives).
• Central reevaluation of duodenal histology was performed in 29 discordant cases, resulting in 348 true positive cases, 15 false positive cases, 66 true negative cases, and 7 false negative cases – the equivalent of a positive predictive value of 95.9%, a negative predictive value of 90.4%, a sensitivity of 98%, and a specificity of 81.5%.
• The positive predictive value of local serum tTG-IgA increased when the serologic threshold was defined at increasing multiples of the ULN. The test correctly diagnosed duodenal villous atrophy in 97.5% of patients with serum tTG-IgA concentrations greater than 10 times the ULN.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this multicentre prospective study indicate that a no-biopsy approach for the diagnosis of coeliac disease is safe and reliable in adult patients without IgA deficiency and with serum tTG-IgA greater than the assay-specific upper limit of normal,” the authors write. “We found no evidence that important comorbidities would be missed by adopting a no-biopsy strategy.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carolina Ciacci, Centre for Coeliac Disease, AOU San Giovanni Di Dio e Ruggi d’Aragona, Salerno, Italy, and was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include a lack of data on IgA-deficient participants, a low number of participants in some subgroup analyses, a lack of data for many ethnic groups, limited follow-up information, limited assessments in the central laboratory, and high pretest probability of celiac disease (low number of participants without duodenal villous atrophy).

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. One coauthor is an employee of Werfen. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

For adults with suspected celiac disease who do not have immunoglobulin A (IgA) deficiency, diagnostic bowel biopsy can most likely be avoided if the serum antitissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA) level is high.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the reliability of serum tests for diagnosing celiac disease, as defined by duodenal villous atrophy (Marsh type 3 or Corazza-Villanacci grade B).
• The main study cohort included 436 adults with suspected celiac disease who did not have IgA deficiency and who were not on a gluten-free diet (mean age, 40 years; 68% women). The patients were referred by 14 centers across four continents to undergo local endoscopic duodenal biopsy.
• Local serum tTG-IgA was measured with 14 test brands. Concentration was expressed as a multiple of each test’s upper limit of normal (ULN). Tests were defined as positive when they exceeded one times the ULN.
• Histology was assessed by the local pathologist, and discordant cases were reevaluated by a central pathologist.

TAKEAWAY:

• Positive serum tTG-IgA was detected in 363 (83%) participants; negative serum tTG-IgA was detected in 73 (17%).
• After local review, 341 of the participants with positive serum tTG-IgA had positive histology (true positives) and 22 had negative histology (false positives).
• Of the 73 participants with negative serum tTG-IgA, 66 had negative histology (true negatives) and 7 had positive histology (false negatives).
• Central reevaluation of duodenal histology was performed in 29 discordant cases, resulting in 348 true positive cases, 15 false positive cases, 66 true negative cases, and 7 false negative cases – the equivalent of a positive predictive value of 95.9%, a negative predictive value of 90.4%, a sensitivity of 98%, and a specificity of 81.5%.
• The positive predictive value of local serum tTG-IgA increased when the serologic threshold was defined at increasing multiples of the ULN. The test correctly diagnosed duodenal villous atrophy in 97.5% of patients with serum tTG-IgA concentrations greater than 10 times the ULN.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this multicentre prospective study indicate that a no-biopsy approach for the diagnosis of coeliac disease is safe and reliable in adult patients without IgA deficiency and with serum tTG-IgA greater than the assay-specific upper limit of normal,” the authors write. “We found no evidence that important comorbidities would be missed by adopting a no-biopsy strategy.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carolina Ciacci, Centre for Coeliac Disease, AOU San Giovanni Di Dio e Ruggi d’Aragona, Salerno, Italy, and was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include a lack of data on IgA-deficient participants, a low number of participants in some subgroup analyses, a lack of data for many ethnic groups, limited follow-up information, limited assessments in the central laboratory, and high pretest probability of celiac disease (low number of participants without duodenal villous atrophy).

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. One coauthor is an employee of Werfen. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

For adults with suspected celiac disease who do not have immunoglobulin A (IgA) deficiency, diagnostic bowel biopsy can most likely be avoided if the serum antitissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA) level is high.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the reliability of serum tests for diagnosing celiac disease, as defined by duodenal villous atrophy (Marsh type 3 or Corazza-Villanacci grade B).
• The main study cohort included 436 adults with suspected celiac disease who did not have IgA deficiency and who were not on a gluten-free diet (mean age, 40 years; 68% women). The patients were referred by 14 centers across four continents to undergo local endoscopic duodenal biopsy.
• Local serum tTG-IgA was measured with 14 test brands. Concentration was expressed as a multiple of each test’s upper limit of normal (ULN). Tests were defined as positive when they exceeded one times the ULN.
• Histology was assessed by the local pathologist, and discordant cases were reevaluated by a central pathologist.

TAKEAWAY:

• Positive serum tTG-IgA was detected in 363 (83%) participants; negative serum tTG-IgA was detected in 73 (17%).
• After local review, 341 of the participants with positive serum tTG-IgA had positive histology (true positives) and 22 had negative histology (false positives).
• Of the 73 participants with negative serum tTG-IgA, 66 had negative histology (true negatives) and 7 had positive histology (false negatives).
• Central reevaluation of duodenal histology was performed in 29 discordant cases, resulting in 348 true positive cases, 15 false positive cases, 66 true negative cases, and 7 false negative cases – the equivalent of a positive predictive value of 95.9%, a negative predictive value of 90.4%, a sensitivity of 98%, and a specificity of 81.5%.
• The positive predictive value of local serum tTG-IgA increased when the serologic threshold was defined at increasing multiples of the ULN. The test correctly diagnosed duodenal villous atrophy in 97.5% of patients with serum tTG-IgA concentrations greater than 10 times the ULN.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this multicentre prospective study indicate that a no-biopsy approach for the diagnosis of coeliac disease is safe and reliable in adult patients without IgA deficiency and with serum tTG-IgA greater than the assay-specific upper limit of normal,” the authors write. “We found no evidence that important comorbidities would be missed by adopting a no-biopsy strategy.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carolina Ciacci, Centre for Coeliac Disease, AOU San Giovanni Di Dio e Ruggi d’Aragona, Salerno, Italy, and was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include a lack of data on IgA-deficient participants, a low number of participants in some subgroup analyses, a lack of data for many ethnic groups, limited follow-up information, limited assessments in the central laboratory, and high pretest probability of celiac disease (low number of participants without duodenal villous atrophy).

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. One coauthor is an employee of Werfen. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
• A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
• The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
• Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
• There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
• Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
• The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”

SOURCE:

Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
• A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
• The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
• Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
• There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
• Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
• The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”

SOURCE:

Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
• A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
• The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
• Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
• There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
• Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
• The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”

SOURCE:

Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.

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

TOPLINE:

Men exposed to either job-related stress or an imbalance between the effort they put in and the rewards they reap at work have a 50% increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), and those facing both stressors have double the risk compared with colleagues not suffering from these stressors, new research shows. Results in women were inconclusive, suggesting a more complex relationship of these factors, the researchers noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• Evidence suggests psychosocial stressors at work, from job strain related to level of demand and control in workload and decision-making responsibilities, and an effort-reward imbalance (ERI) in areas such as salary, promotion, and job stability, increase CHD risk, with the effect of both types of stressors together possibly being especially harmful.
• The study, which included 6,465 participants in the cardiovascular component of PROQ, a Canadian prospective cohort of white-collar workers initially free of cardiovascular disease, mean age 45 years, estimated that the separate and combined effect of job strain and ERI on CHD incidence.
• Researchers used the Job Content Questionnaire to assess psychological demands and job control; various measures; scales to determine job strain, reward, and effort at work; and the sum of both effort and reward to calculate the ERI ratio.
• They assessed CHD using medico-administrative databases and an algorithm validated by medical records.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 18.7 years, there were 571 and 265 incident CHD cases among men and women, respectively.
• Men with either job strain or ERI had a 49% increased risk for CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.09), an estimate comparable to that of several lifestyle risk factors for CHD.
• Male workers facing both job strain and ERI had a 103% increased risk for CHD (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.38-2.97), which is comparable to the increased risk associated with obesity.
• Associations were robust to adjustments for demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, personality, stressful life events, and biomedical and lifestyle factors.
• Among women, results were inconclusive because the CIs were wide enough to encompass both protective and detrimental effects, suggesting more research is needed into the complex interplay of various stressors and women’s heart health.

IN PRACTICE:

“Integrative and interdisciplinary approaches should be used to tackle psychosocial stressors at work,” the authors wrote, adding this involves “going beyond traditional modifiable individual behaviors” and should include “population-based prevention strategies taking into consideration both the individual and their work environment.” 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec-Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. It was published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 

LIMITATIONS:

There was a risk for chance associations due to multiple testing. The exposure may have changed over the course of the study. Using medical databases for CHD event definition may have led to misclassification and underestimation of outcomes. The study population is limited to white-collar workers.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Lavigne-Robichaud was supported by a PhD grant from les Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

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

TOPLINE:

Men exposed to either job-related stress or an imbalance between the effort they put in and the rewards they reap at work have a 50% increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), and those facing both stressors have double the risk compared with colleagues not suffering from these stressors, new research shows. Results in women were inconclusive, suggesting a more complex relationship of these factors, the researchers noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• Evidence suggests psychosocial stressors at work, from job strain related to level of demand and control in workload and decision-making responsibilities, and an effort-reward imbalance (ERI) in areas such as salary, promotion, and job stability, increase CHD risk, with the effect of both types of stressors together possibly being especially harmful.
• The study, which included 6,465 participants in the cardiovascular component of PROQ, a Canadian prospective cohort of white-collar workers initially free of cardiovascular disease, mean age 45 years, estimated that the separate and combined effect of job strain and ERI on CHD incidence.
• Researchers used the Job Content Questionnaire to assess psychological demands and job control; various measures; scales to determine job strain, reward, and effort at work; and the sum of both effort and reward to calculate the ERI ratio.
• They assessed CHD using medico-administrative databases and an algorithm validated by medical records.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 18.7 years, there were 571 and 265 incident CHD cases among men and women, respectively.
• Men with either job strain or ERI had a 49% increased risk for CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.09), an estimate comparable to that of several lifestyle risk factors for CHD.
• Male workers facing both job strain and ERI had a 103% increased risk for CHD (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.38-2.97), which is comparable to the increased risk associated with obesity.
• Associations were robust to adjustments for demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, personality, stressful life events, and biomedical and lifestyle factors.
• Among women, results were inconclusive because the CIs were wide enough to encompass both protective and detrimental effects, suggesting more research is needed into the complex interplay of various stressors and women’s heart health.

IN PRACTICE:

“Integrative and interdisciplinary approaches should be used to tackle psychosocial stressors at work,” the authors wrote, adding this involves “going beyond traditional modifiable individual behaviors” and should include “population-based prevention strategies taking into consideration both the individual and their work environment.” 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec-Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. It was published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 

LIMITATIONS:

There was a risk for chance associations due to multiple testing. The exposure may have changed over the course of the study. Using medical databases for CHD event definition may have led to misclassification and underestimation of outcomes. The study population is limited to white-collar workers.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Lavigne-Robichaud was supported by a PhD grant from les Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

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

TOPLINE:

Men exposed to either job-related stress or an imbalance between the effort they put in and the rewards they reap at work have a 50% increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), and those facing both stressors have double the risk compared with colleagues not suffering from these stressors, new research shows. Results in women were inconclusive, suggesting a more complex relationship of these factors, the researchers noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• Evidence suggests psychosocial stressors at work, from job strain related to level of demand and control in workload and decision-making responsibilities, and an effort-reward imbalance (ERI) in areas such as salary, promotion, and job stability, increase CHD risk, with the effect of both types of stressors together possibly being especially harmful.
• The study, which included 6,465 participants in the cardiovascular component of PROQ, a Canadian prospective cohort of white-collar workers initially free of cardiovascular disease, mean age 45 years, estimated that the separate and combined effect of job strain and ERI on CHD incidence.
• Researchers used the Job Content Questionnaire to assess psychological demands and job control; various measures; scales to determine job strain, reward, and effort at work; and the sum of both effort and reward to calculate the ERI ratio.
• They assessed CHD using medico-administrative databases and an algorithm validated by medical records.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 18.7 years, there were 571 and 265 incident CHD cases among men and women, respectively.
• Men with either job strain or ERI had a 49% increased risk for CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.09), an estimate comparable to that of several lifestyle risk factors for CHD.
• Male workers facing both job strain and ERI had a 103% increased risk for CHD (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.38-2.97), which is comparable to the increased risk associated with obesity.
• Associations were robust to adjustments for demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, personality, stressful life events, and biomedical and lifestyle factors.
• Among women, results were inconclusive because the CIs were wide enough to encompass both protective and detrimental effects, suggesting more research is needed into the complex interplay of various stressors and women’s heart health.

IN PRACTICE:

“Integrative and interdisciplinary approaches should be used to tackle psychosocial stressors at work,” the authors wrote, adding this involves “going beyond traditional modifiable individual behaviors” and should include “population-based prevention strategies taking into consideration both the individual and their work environment.” 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec-Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. It was published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 

LIMITATIONS:

There was a risk for chance associations due to multiple testing. The exposure may have changed over the course of the study. Using medical databases for CHD event definition may have led to misclassification and underestimation of outcomes. The study population is limited to white-collar workers.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Lavigne-Robichaud was supported by a PhD grant from les Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The European Commission has authorized the marketing of ritlecitinib to treat adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with severe alopecia areata. This makes ritlecitinib the first medicine authorized by the EC to treat individuals with severe alopecia areata as young as 12 years of age.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3. In June of 2023, the drug received FDA approval for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older in the United States.

According to a press release from Pfizer, which developed the drug, EC approval was based on the pivotal ALLEGRO clinical trial program, which included the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 study that evaluated ritlecitinib in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata with 50% or more scalp hair loss, including patients with alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (total body hair loss). Results from this study showed that 13.4% of adults and adolescents achieved 90% or more scalp hair coverage (Severity of Alopecia Tool score of 10 or less) after 24 weeks of treatment with ritlecitinib 50 mg, compared with 1.5% of those on placebo.

The study also measured Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). At week 24, 49.2% of participants treated with ritlecitinib reported a PGI-C response of “moderate” to “great” improvement in their alopecia areata, compared with 9.2% with placebo.

According to results from an ongoing, long-term phase 3 study of ritlecitinib known as ALLEGRO-LT, the most common adverse reactions reported from use of the drug included diarrhea (9.2%), acne (6.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (6.2%), urticaria (4.6%), rash (3.8%), folliculitis (3.1%), and dizziness (2.3%), the company press release said.





 

The European Commission has authorized the marketing of ritlecitinib to treat adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with severe alopecia areata. This makes ritlecitinib the first medicine authorized by the EC to treat individuals with severe alopecia areata as young as 12 years of age.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3. In June of 2023, the drug received FDA approval for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older in the United States.

According to a press release from Pfizer, which developed the drug, EC approval was based on the pivotal ALLEGRO clinical trial program, which included the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 study that evaluated ritlecitinib in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata with 50% or more scalp hair loss, including patients with alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (total body hair loss). Results from this study showed that 13.4% of adults and adolescents achieved 90% or more scalp hair coverage (Severity of Alopecia Tool score of 10 or less) after 24 weeks of treatment with ritlecitinib 50 mg, compared with 1.5% of those on placebo.

The study also measured Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). At week 24, 49.2% of participants treated with ritlecitinib reported a PGI-C response of “moderate” to “great” improvement in their alopecia areata, compared with 9.2% with placebo.

According to results from an ongoing, long-term phase 3 study of ritlecitinib known as ALLEGRO-LT, the most common adverse reactions reported from use of the drug included diarrhea (9.2%), acne (6.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (6.2%), urticaria (4.6%), rash (3.8%), folliculitis (3.1%), and dizziness (2.3%), the company press release said.





 

The European Commission has authorized the marketing of ritlecitinib to treat adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with severe alopecia areata. This makes ritlecitinib the first medicine authorized by the EC to treat individuals with severe alopecia areata as young as 12 years of age.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3. In June of 2023, the drug received FDA approval for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older in the United States.

According to a press release from Pfizer, which developed the drug, EC approval was based on the pivotal ALLEGRO clinical trial program, which included the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 study that evaluated ritlecitinib in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata with 50% or more scalp hair loss, including patients with alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (total body hair loss). Results from this study showed that 13.4% of adults and adolescents achieved 90% or more scalp hair coverage (Severity of Alopecia Tool score of 10 or less) after 24 weeks of treatment with ritlecitinib 50 mg, compared with 1.5% of those on placebo.

The study also measured Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). At week 24, 49.2% of participants treated with ritlecitinib reported a PGI-C response of “moderate” to “great” improvement in their alopecia areata, compared with 9.2% with placebo.

According to results from an ongoing, long-term phase 3 study of ritlecitinib known as ALLEGRO-LT, the most common adverse reactions reported from use of the drug included diarrhea (9.2%), acne (6.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (6.2%), urticaria (4.6%), rash (3.8%), folliculitis (3.1%), and dizziness (2.3%), the company press release said.





 

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against low-carbohydrate diets for most children and adolescents with or at risk for diabetes, according to a new clinical report.

Citing a lack of high-quality data and potential for adverse effects with carbohydrate restriction among younger individuals, lead author Anna Neyman, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues suggested that pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate intake, while those with type 1 diabetes should only pursue broader carbohydrate restriction under close medical supervision.

“There are no guidelines for restricting dietary carbohydrate consumption to reduce risk for diabetes or improve diabetes outcomes in youth,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Thus, there is a need to provide practical recommendations for pediatricians regarding the use of low-carbohydrate diets in patients who elect to follow these diets, including those with type 1 diabetes and for patients with obesity, prediabetes, and type 2 diabetes.”

Their new report includes a summary of the various types of carbohydrate-restricted diets, a review of available evidence for these diets among pediatric patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and several practical recommendations based on their findings.

Dr. Neyman and colleagues first noted a lack of standardization in describing the various tiers of carbohydrate restriction; however, they offered some rough guidelines. Compared with a typical, balanced diet, which includes 45%-65% of calories from carbohydrates, a moderately restrictive diet includes 26%-44% of calories from carbohydrates, while a low-carb diet includes less than 26% of calories from carbs. Further down the scale, very low-carb diets and ketogenic diets call for 20-50 g of carbs per day or less than 20 g of carbs per day, respectively.

“There is evidence from adult studies that these diets can be associated with significant weight loss, reduction in insulin levels or insulin requirements, and improvement in glucose control,” the investigators noted. “Nevertheless, there is a lack of long-term safety and efficacy outcomes in youth.”

They went on to cite a range of safety concerns, including “growth deceleration, nutritional deficiencies, poor bone health, nutritional ketosis that cannot be distinguished from ketosis resulting from insulin deficiency, and disordered eating behaviors.”

“Body dissatisfaction associated with restrictive dieting practices places children and adolescents at risk for inadequate dietary intake, excessive weight gain resulting from binge-eating after restricting food intake, and use of harmful weight-control strategies,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, restrictive dieting practices may negatively impact mental health and self-concept and are directly associated with decreased mood and increased feelings of anxiety.”

Until more evidence is available, Dr. Neyman and colleagues advised adherence to a balanced diet, including increased dietary fiber and reduced consumption of ultra-processed carbohydrates.

“Eliminating sugary beverages and juices significantly improves blood glucose and weight management in children and adolescents,” they noted.

For pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, the investigators suggested that low-carb and very low-carb diets should only be pursued “under close diabetes care team supervision utilizing safety guidelines.”
 

Lack of evidence is the problem

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, codirector of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said the review is “rather general” and “reiterates common, although not always fair, concerns about carbohydrate restriction.”

courtesy Boston Children's Hospital

“The main issue they highlight is the lack of evidence, especially from clinical trials, for a low-carbohydrate diet in children, as related to diabetes,” Dr. Ludwig said in a written comment, noting that this is indeed an issue. “However, what needs to be recognized is that a conventional high-carbohydrate diet has never been shown to be superior in adults or children for diabetes. Furthermore, whereas a poorly formulated low-carb diet may have adverse effects and risks (e.g., nutrient deficiencies), so can a high-carbohydrate diet – including an increase in triglycerides and other risk factors comprising metabolic syndrome.”

He said that the “main challenge in diabetes is to control blood glucose after eating,” and a high-carb makes this more difficult, as it requires more insulin after a meal than a low-carb meal would require, and increases risk of subsequent hypoglycemia.

For those interested in an alternative perspective to the AAP clinical report, Dr. Ludwig recommended two of his recent review articles, including one published in the Journal of Nutrition and another from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. In both, notes the long history of carbohydrate restriction for patients with diabetes, with usage dating back to the 1700s. Although the diet fell out of favor with the introduction of insulin, Dr. Ludwig believes that it needs to be reconsidered, and is more than a passing fad.

“Preliminary research suggests that this dietary approach might transform clinical management and perhaps normalize HbA1c for many people with diabetes, at substantially reduced treatment costs,” Dr. Ludwig and colleagues wrote in the JCI review. “High-quality randomized controlled trials, with intensive support for behavior changes, will be needed to address this possibility and assess long-term safety and sustainability. With total medical costs of diabetes in the United States approaching $1 billion a day, this research must assume high priority.”

This clinical report was commissioned by the AAP. Dr. Ludwig received royalties for books that recommend a carbohydrate-modified diet.

This article was updated 9/20/23.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against low-carbohydrate diets for most children and adolescents with or at risk for diabetes, according to a new clinical report.

Citing a lack of high-quality data and potential for adverse effects with carbohydrate restriction among younger individuals, lead author Anna Neyman, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues suggested that pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate intake, while those with type 1 diabetes should only pursue broader carbohydrate restriction under close medical supervision.

“There are no guidelines for restricting dietary carbohydrate consumption to reduce risk for diabetes or improve diabetes outcomes in youth,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Thus, there is a need to provide practical recommendations for pediatricians regarding the use of low-carbohydrate diets in patients who elect to follow these diets, including those with type 1 diabetes and for patients with obesity, prediabetes, and type 2 diabetes.”

Their new report includes a summary of the various types of carbohydrate-restricted diets, a review of available evidence for these diets among pediatric patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and several practical recommendations based on their findings.

Dr. Neyman and colleagues first noted a lack of standardization in describing the various tiers of carbohydrate restriction; however, they offered some rough guidelines. Compared with a typical, balanced diet, which includes 45%-65% of calories from carbohydrates, a moderately restrictive diet includes 26%-44% of calories from carbohydrates, while a low-carb diet includes less than 26% of calories from carbs. Further down the scale, very low-carb diets and ketogenic diets call for 20-50 g of carbs per day or less than 20 g of carbs per day, respectively.

“There is evidence from adult studies that these diets can be associated with significant weight loss, reduction in insulin levels or insulin requirements, and improvement in glucose control,” the investigators noted. “Nevertheless, there is a lack of long-term safety and efficacy outcomes in youth.”

They went on to cite a range of safety concerns, including “growth deceleration, nutritional deficiencies, poor bone health, nutritional ketosis that cannot be distinguished from ketosis resulting from insulin deficiency, and disordered eating behaviors.”

“Body dissatisfaction associated with restrictive dieting practices places children and adolescents at risk for inadequate dietary intake, excessive weight gain resulting from binge-eating after restricting food intake, and use of harmful weight-control strategies,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, restrictive dieting practices may negatively impact mental health and self-concept and are directly associated with decreased mood and increased feelings of anxiety.”

Until more evidence is available, Dr. Neyman and colleagues advised adherence to a balanced diet, including increased dietary fiber and reduced consumption of ultra-processed carbohydrates.

“Eliminating sugary beverages and juices significantly improves blood glucose and weight management in children and adolescents,” they noted.

For pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, the investigators suggested that low-carb and very low-carb diets should only be pursued “under close diabetes care team supervision utilizing safety guidelines.”
 

Lack of evidence is the problem

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, codirector of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said the review is “rather general” and “reiterates common, although not always fair, concerns about carbohydrate restriction.”

courtesy Boston Children's Hospital

“The main issue they highlight is the lack of evidence, especially from clinical trials, for a low-carbohydrate diet in children, as related to diabetes,” Dr. Ludwig said in a written comment, noting that this is indeed an issue. “However, what needs to be recognized is that a conventional high-carbohydrate diet has never been shown to be superior in adults or children for diabetes. Furthermore, whereas a poorly formulated low-carb diet may have adverse effects and risks (e.g., nutrient deficiencies), so can a high-carbohydrate diet – including an increase in triglycerides and other risk factors comprising metabolic syndrome.”

He said that the “main challenge in diabetes is to control blood glucose after eating,” and a high-carb makes this more difficult, as it requires more insulin after a meal than a low-carb meal would require, and increases risk of subsequent hypoglycemia.

For those interested in an alternative perspective to the AAP clinical report, Dr. Ludwig recommended two of his recent review articles, including one published in the Journal of Nutrition and another from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. In both, notes the long history of carbohydrate restriction for patients with diabetes, with usage dating back to the 1700s. Although the diet fell out of favor with the introduction of insulin, Dr. Ludwig believes that it needs to be reconsidered, and is more than a passing fad.

“Preliminary research suggests that this dietary approach might transform clinical management and perhaps normalize HbA1c for many people with diabetes, at substantially reduced treatment costs,” Dr. Ludwig and colleagues wrote in the JCI review. “High-quality randomized controlled trials, with intensive support for behavior changes, will be needed to address this possibility and assess long-term safety and sustainability. With total medical costs of diabetes in the United States approaching $1 billion a day, this research must assume high priority.”

This clinical report was commissioned by the AAP. Dr. Ludwig received royalties for books that recommend a carbohydrate-modified diet.

This article was updated 9/20/23.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against low-carbohydrate diets for most children and adolescents with or at risk for diabetes, according to a new clinical report.

Citing a lack of high-quality data and potential for adverse effects with carbohydrate restriction among younger individuals, lead author Anna Neyman, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues suggested that pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate intake, while those with type 1 diabetes should only pursue broader carbohydrate restriction under close medical supervision.

“There are no guidelines for restricting dietary carbohydrate consumption to reduce risk for diabetes or improve diabetes outcomes in youth,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Thus, there is a need to provide practical recommendations for pediatricians regarding the use of low-carbohydrate diets in patients who elect to follow these diets, including those with type 1 diabetes and for patients with obesity, prediabetes, and type 2 diabetes.”

Their new report includes a summary of the various types of carbohydrate-restricted diets, a review of available evidence for these diets among pediatric patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and several practical recommendations based on their findings.

Dr. Neyman and colleagues first noted a lack of standardization in describing the various tiers of carbohydrate restriction; however, they offered some rough guidelines. Compared with a typical, balanced diet, which includes 45%-65% of calories from carbohydrates, a moderately restrictive diet includes 26%-44% of calories from carbohydrates, while a low-carb diet includes less than 26% of calories from carbs. Further down the scale, very low-carb diets and ketogenic diets call for 20-50 g of carbs per day or less than 20 g of carbs per day, respectively.

“There is evidence from adult studies that these diets can be associated with significant weight loss, reduction in insulin levels or insulin requirements, and improvement in glucose control,” the investigators noted. “Nevertheless, there is a lack of long-term safety and efficacy outcomes in youth.”

They went on to cite a range of safety concerns, including “growth deceleration, nutritional deficiencies, poor bone health, nutritional ketosis that cannot be distinguished from ketosis resulting from insulin deficiency, and disordered eating behaviors.”

“Body dissatisfaction associated with restrictive dieting practices places children and adolescents at risk for inadequate dietary intake, excessive weight gain resulting from binge-eating after restricting food intake, and use of harmful weight-control strategies,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, restrictive dieting practices may negatively impact mental health and self-concept and are directly associated with decreased mood and increased feelings of anxiety.”

Until more evidence is available, Dr. Neyman and colleagues advised adherence to a balanced diet, including increased dietary fiber and reduced consumption of ultra-processed carbohydrates.

“Eliminating sugary beverages and juices significantly improves blood glucose and weight management in children and adolescents,” they noted.

For pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, the investigators suggested that low-carb and very low-carb diets should only be pursued “under close diabetes care team supervision utilizing safety guidelines.”
 

Lack of evidence is the problem

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, codirector of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said the review is “rather general” and “reiterates common, although not always fair, concerns about carbohydrate restriction.”

courtesy Boston Children's Hospital

“The main issue they highlight is the lack of evidence, especially from clinical trials, for a low-carbohydrate diet in children, as related to diabetes,” Dr. Ludwig said in a written comment, noting that this is indeed an issue. “However, what needs to be recognized is that a conventional high-carbohydrate diet has never been shown to be superior in adults or children for diabetes. Furthermore, whereas a poorly formulated low-carb diet may have adverse effects and risks (e.g., nutrient deficiencies), so can a high-carbohydrate diet – including an increase in triglycerides and other risk factors comprising metabolic syndrome.”

He said that the “main challenge in diabetes is to control blood glucose after eating,” and a high-carb makes this more difficult, as it requires more insulin after a meal than a low-carb meal would require, and increases risk of subsequent hypoglycemia.

For those interested in an alternative perspective to the AAP clinical report, Dr. Ludwig recommended two of his recent review articles, including one published in the Journal of Nutrition and another from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. In both, notes the long history of carbohydrate restriction for patients with diabetes, with usage dating back to the 1700s. Although the diet fell out of favor with the introduction of insulin, Dr. Ludwig believes that it needs to be reconsidered, and is more than a passing fad.

“Preliminary research suggests that this dietary approach might transform clinical management and perhaps normalize HbA1c for many people with diabetes, at substantially reduced treatment costs,” Dr. Ludwig and colleagues wrote in the JCI review. “High-quality randomized controlled trials, with intensive support for behavior changes, will be needed to address this possibility and assess long-term safety and sustainability. With total medical costs of diabetes in the United States approaching $1 billion a day, this research must assume high priority.”

This clinical report was commissioned by the AAP. Dr. Ludwig received royalties for books that recommend a carbohydrate-modified diet.

This article was updated 9/20/23.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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