Cardiology News

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbot’s Freestyle Libre 3 system for use by people aged 4 years and older with diabetes.

The new system was cleared for use for both iOS- and Android-compatible mobile apps, enabling real-time glucose readings in contrast to the “intermittently scanned” capability of prior Libre versions. The Libre 3 allows for optional alarms and notifications of urgent low or high glucose levels, as well as remote monitoring by health care professionals or the patient’s family members and/or friends.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 was granted a CE Mark in Europe in October 2020.

Smaller, thinner, and better integration

According to Abbott, the Libre 3 is the first continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to show a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of less than 8% compared with a gold-standard glucose measure. The average Libre 3 MARD is 7.9%, compared with 9.3% for the Libre 2. The Libre 3 is also the “smallest and thinnest” CGM, roughly the size of two stacked U.S. pennies, worn on the upper arm.

And, the company said, the Libre 3 has a Bluetooth integration of up to 33 feet, a range 50% further than other CGMs.   

This version follows the FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in June 2020, and its compatible iPhone app, approved in August 2021.

The Libre 3 will be priced the same as the Libre 2, at about one-third the cost of other CGM systems. However, it is not currently eligible for Medicare reimbursement. Medicaid eligibility may vary by state.

“I applaud Abbott for making their CGM system the most affordable and addressing disparities in care so patients living with diabetes can avoid complications and optimize their quality of life,” Eugene E. Wright Jr., MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an Abbott statement.

“I have seen real-world evidence that diabetes technologies like CGMs have helped my patients safely achieve improved glycemic control,” he said.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor will be available at participating pharmacies later this year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbot’s Freestyle Libre 3 system for use by people aged 4 years and older with diabetes.

The new system was cleared for use for both iOS- and Android-compatible mobile apps, enabling real-time glucose readings in contrast to the “intermittently scanned” capability of prior Libre versions. The Libre 3 allows for optional alarms and notifications of urgent low or high glucose levels, as well as remote monitoring by health care professionals or the patient’s family members and/or friends.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 was granted a CE Mark in Europe in October 2020.

Smaller, thinner, and better integration

According to Abbott, the Libre 3 is the first continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to show a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of less than 8% compared with a gold-standard glucose measure. The average Libre 3 MARD is 7.9%, compared with 9.3% for the Libre 2. The Libre 3 is also the “smallest and thinnest” CGM, roughly the size of two stacked U.S. pennies, worn on the upper arm.

And, the company said, the Libre 3 has a Bluetooth integration of up to 33 feet, a range 50% further than other CGMs.   

This version follows the FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in June 2020, and its compatible iPhone app, approved in August 2021.

The Libre 3 will be priced the same as the Libre 2, at about one-third the cost of other CGM systems. However, it is not currently eligible for Medicare reimbursement. Medicaid eligibility may vary by state.

“I applaud Abbott for making their CGM system the most affordable and addressing disparities in care so patients living with diabetes can avoid complications and optimize their quality of life,” Eugene E. Wright Jr., MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an Abbott statement.

“I have seen real-world evidence that diabetes technologies like CGMs have helped my patients safely achieve improved glycemic control,” he said.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor will be available at participating pharmacies later this year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbot’s Freestyle Libre 3 system for use by people aged 4 years and older with diabetes.

The new system was cleared for use for both iOS- and Android-compatible mobile apps, enabling real-time glucose readings in contrast to the “intermittently scanned” capability of prior Libre versions. The Libre 3 allows for optional alarms and notifications of urgent low or high glucose levels, as well as remote monitoring by health care professionals or the patient’s family members and/or friends.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 was granted a CE Mark in Europe in October 2020.

Smaller, thinner, and better integration

According to Abbott, the Libre 3 is the first continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to show a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of less than 8% compared with a gold-standard glucose measure. The average Libre 3 MARD is 7.9%, compared with 9.3% for the Libre 2. The Libre 3 is also the “smallest and thinnest” CGM, roughly the size of two stacked U.S. pennies, worn on the upper arm.

And, the company said, the Libre 3 has a Bluetooth integration of up to 33 feet, a range 50% further than other CGMs.   

This version follows the FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in June 2020, and its compatible iPhone app, approved in August 2021.

The Libre 3 will be priced the same as the Libre 2, at about one-third the cost of other CGM systems. However, it is not currently eligible for Medicare reimbursement. Medicaid eligibility may vary by state.

“I applaud Abbott for making their CGM system the most affordable and addressing disparities in care so patients living with diabetes can avoid complications and optimize their quality of life,” Eugene E. Wright Jr., MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an Abbott statement.

“I have seen real-world evidence that diabetes technologies like CGMs have helped my patients safely achieve improved glycemic control,” he said.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor will be available at participating pharmacies later this year.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Moderate consumption of coffee, with or without sugar, is associated with a reduced risk of death, according to prospective cohort study.

Among more than 170,000 people in the United Kingdom, those who drank about two to four cups of coffee a day, with or without sugar, had a lower rate of death than those who didn’t drink coffee, reported lead author Dan Liu, MD, of the department of epidemiology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

“Previous observational studies have suggested an association between coffee intake and reduced risk for death, but they did not distinguish between coffee consumed with sugar or artificial sweeteners and coffee consumed without,” Dr. Liu, who is also of the department of public health and preventive medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

To learn more, the investigators turned to the UK Biobank, which recruited approximately half a million participants in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 to undergo a variety of questionnaires, interviews, physical measurements, and medical tests. Out of this group, 171,616 participants completed at least one dietary questionnaire and met the criteria for the present study, including lack of cancer or cardiovascular disease upon enrollment.

Results from these questionnaires showed that 55.4% of participants drank coffee without any sweetener, 14.3% drank coffee with sugar, 6.1% drank coffee with artificial sweetener, and 24.2% did not drink coffee at all. Coffee drinkers were further sorted into groups based on how many cups of coffee they drank per day.
 

Coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause

Over the course of about 7 years, 3,177 of the participants died, including 1,725 who died from cancer and 628 who died from cardiovascular disease.

After accounting for other factors that might impact risk of death, like lifestyle choices, the investigators found that coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, than those who didn’t drink coffee at all. This benefit was observed across types of coffee, including ground, instant, and decaffeinated varieties. The protective effects of coffee were most apparent in people who drank about two to four cups a day, among whom death was about 30% less likely, regardless of whether they added sugar to their coffee or not. Individuals who drank coffee with artificial sweetener did not live significantly longer than those who drank no coffee at all; however, the investigators suggested that this result may have been skewed by higher rates of negative health factors, such as obesity and hypertension, in the artificial sweetener group.

Dr. Liu and colleagues noted that their findings align with previous studies linking coffee consumption with survival. Like those other studies, the present data revealed a “U-shaped” benefit curve, in which moderate coffee consumption was associated with longer life, whereas low or no consumption and high consumption were not.
 

Experts caution against drinking sweetened beverages despite new findings

Although the present findings suggested that adding sugar did not eliminate the health benefits of coffee, Dr. Liu and colleagues still cautioned against sweetened beverages, citing widely known associations between sugar consumption and poor health.

In an accompanying editorial, Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, pointed out a key detail from the data: the amount of sugar added to coffee in the U.K. study may be dwarfed by the amount consumed by some coffee drinkers across the pond.

“The average dose of added sugar per cup of sweetened coffee [in the study] was only a little over a teaspoon, or about 4 grams,” Dr. Wee wrote. “This is a far cry from the 15 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce cup of caramel macchiato at a popular U.S. coffee chain.”

Still, Dr. Wee, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the obesity research program in the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested that your typical coffee drinker can feel safe in their daily habit.

“The evidence does not suggest a need for most coffee drinkers – particularly those who drink it with no or modest amounts of sugar – to eliminate coffee,” she wrote. “So drink up – but it would be prudent to avoid too many caramel macchiatos while more evidence brews.”

Estefanía Toledo, MD, MPH, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, offered a similar takeaway.

Courtesy University of Navarra

“For those who enjoy drinking coffee, are not pregnant or lactating, and do not have special health conditions, coffee consumption could be considered part of a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Toledo said in a written comment. “I would recommend adding as little sugar as possible to coffee until more evidence has been accrued.”

Dr. Toledo, who previously published a study showing a link between coffee and extended survival, noted that moderate coffee consumption has “repeatedly” been associated with lower rates of “several chronic diseases” and death, but there still isn’t enough evidence to recommend coffee for those who don’t already drink it.

More long-term research is needed, Dr. Toledo said, ideally with studies comparing changes in coffee consumption and health outcomes over time. These may not be forthcoming, however, as such trials are “not easy and feasible to conduct.”

David Kao, MD, assistant professor of medicine-cardiology and medical director of the school of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the study conducted by Dr. Liu and colleagues is a “very well-executed analysis” that strengthens our confidence in the safety of long-term coffee consumption, even for patients with heart disease.

Dr. Kao, who recently published an analysis showing that higher coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, refrained from advising anyone to up their coffee quota.

“I remain cautious about stating too strongly that people should increase coffee intake purely to improve survival,” Dr. Kao said in a written comment. “That said, it does not appear harmful to increase it some, until you drink consistently more than six to seven cups per day.”

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, and others. Dr. Toledo and Dr. Kao disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Moderate consumption of coffee, with or without sugar, is associated with a reduced risk of death, according to prospective cohort study.

Among more than 170,000 people in the United Kingdom, those who drank about two to four cups of coffee a day, with or without sugar, had a lower rate of death than those who didn’t drink coffee, reported lead author Dan Liu, MD, of the department of epidemiology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

“Previous observational studies have suggested an association between coffee intake and reduced risk for death, but they did not distinguish between coffee consumed with sugar or artificial sweeteners and coffee consumed without,” Dr. Liu, who is also of the department of public health and preventive medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

To learn more, the investigators turned to the UK Biobank, which recruited approximately half a million participants in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 to undergo a variety of questionnaires, interviews, physical measurements, and medical tests. Out of this group, 171,616 participants completed at least one dietary questionnaire and met the criteria for the present study, including lack of cancer or cardiovascular disease upon enrollment.

Results from these questionnaires showed that 55.4% of participants drank coffee without any sweetener, 14.3% drank coffee with sugar, 6.1% drank coffee with artificial sweetener, and 24.2% did not drink coffee at all. Coffee drinkers were further sorted into groups based on how many cups of coffee they drank per day.
 

Coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause

Over the course of about 7 years, 3,177 of the participants died, including 1,725 who died from cancer and 628 who died from cardiovascular disease.

After accounting for other factors that might impact risk of death, like lifestyle choices, the investigators found that coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, than those who didn’t drink coffee at all. This benefit was observed across types of coffee, including ground, instant, and decaffeinated varieties. The protective effects of coffee were most apparent in people who drank about two to four cups a day, among whom death was about 30% less likely, regardless of whether they added sugar to their coffee or not. Individuals who drank coffee with artificial sweetener did not live significantly longer than those who drank no coffee at all; however, the investigators suggested that this result may have been skewed by higher rates of negative health factors, such as obesity and hypertension, in the artificial sweetener group.

Dr. Liu and colleagues noted that their findings align with previous studies linking coffee consumption with survival. Like those other studies, the present data revealed a “U-shaped” benefit curve, in which moderate coffee consumption was associated with longer life, whereas low or no consumption and high consumption were not.
 

Experts caution against drinking sweetened beverages despite new findings

Although the present findings suggested that adding sugar did not eliminate the health benefits of coffee, Dr. Liu and colleagues still cautioned against sweetened beverages, citing widely known associations between sugar consumption and poor health.

In an accompanying editorial, Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, pointed out a key detail from the data: the amount of sugar added to coffee in the U.K. study may be dwarfed by the amount consumed by some coffee drinkers across the pond.

“The average dose of added sugar per cup of sweetened coffee [in the study] was only a little over a teaspoon, or about 4 grams,” Dr. Wee wrote. “This is a far cry from the 15 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce cup of caramel macchiato at a popular U.S. coffee chain.”

Still, Dr. Wee, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the obesity research program in the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested that your typical coffee drinker can feel safe in their daily habit.

“The evidence does not suggest a need for most coffee drinkers – particularly those who drink it with no or modest amounts of sugar – to eliminate coffee,” she wrote. “So drink up – but it would be prudent to avoid too many caramel macchiatos while more evidence brews.”

Estefanía Toledo, MD, MPH, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, offered a similar takeaway.

Courtesy University of Navarra

“For those who enjoy drinking coffee, are not pregnant or lactating, and do not have special health conditions, coffee consumption could be considered part of a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Toledo said in a written comment. “I would recommend adding as little sugar as possible to coffee until more evidence has been accrued.”

Dr. Toledo, who previously published a study showing a link between coffee and extended survival, noted that moderate coffee consumption has “repeatedly” been associated with lower rates of “several chronic diseases” and death, but there still isn’t enough evidence to recommend coffee for those who don’t already drink it.

More long-term research is needed, Dr. Toledo said, ideally with studies comparing changes in coffee consumption and health outcomes over time. These may not be forthcoming, however, as such trials are “not easy and feasible to conduct.”

David Kao, MD, assistant professor of medicine-cardiology and medical director of the school of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the study conducted by Dr. Liu and colleagues is a “very well-executed analysis” that strengthens our confidence in the safety of long-term coffee consumption, even for patients with heart disease.

Dr. Kao, who recently published an analysis showing that higher coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, refrained from advising anyone to up their coffee quota.

“I remain cautious about stating too strongly that people should increase coffee intake purely to improve survival,” Dr. Kao said in a written comment. “That said, it does not appear harmful to increase it some, until you drink consistently more than six to seven cups per day.”

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, and others. Dr. Toledo and Dr. Kao disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Moderate consumption of coffee, with or without sugar, is associated with a reduced risk of death, according to prospective cohort study.

Among more than 170,000 people in the United Kingdom, those who drank about two to four cups of coffee a day, with or without sugar, had a lower rate of death than those who didn’t drink coffee, reported lead author Dan Liu, MD, of the department of epidemiology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

“Previous observational studies have suggested an association between coffee intake and reduced risk for death, but they did not distinguish between coffee consumed with sugar or artificial sweeteners and coffee consumed without,” Dr. Liu, who is also of the department of public health and preventive medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

To learn more, the investigators turned to the UK Biobank, which recruited approximately half a million participants in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 to undergo a variety of questionnaires, interviews, physical measurements, and medical tests. Out of this group, 171,616 participants completed at least one dietary questionnaire and met the criteria for the present study, including lack of cancer or cardiovascular disease upon enrollment.

Results from these questionnaires showed that 55.4% of participants drank coffee without any sweetener, 14.3% drank coffee with sugar, 6.1% drank coffee with artificial sweetener, and 24.2% did not drink coffee at all. Coffee drinkers were further sorted into groups based on how many cups of coffee they drank per day.
 

Coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause

Over the course of about 7 years, 3,177 of the participants died, including 1,725 who died from cancer and 628 who died from cardiovascular disease.

After accounting for other factors that might impact risk of death, like lifestyle choices, the investigators found that coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, than those who didn’t drink coffee at all. This benefit was observed across types of coffee, including ground, instant, and decaffeinated varieties. The protective effects of coffee were most apparent in people who drank about two to four cups a day, among whom death was about 30% less likely, regardless of whether they added sugar to their coffee or not. Individuals who drank coffee with artificial sweetener did not live significantly longer than those who drank no coffee at all; however, the investigators suggested that this result may have been skewed by higher rates of negative health factors, such as obesity and hypertension, in the artificial sweetener group.

Dr. Liu and colleagues noted that their findings align with previous studies linking coffee consumption with survival. Like those other studies, the present data revealed a “U-shaped” benefit curve, in which moderate coffee consumption was associated with longer life, whereas low or no consumption and high consumption were not.
 

Experts caution against drinking sweetened beverages despite new findings

Although the present findings suggested that adding sugar did not eliminate the health benefits of coffee, Dr. Liu and colleagues still cautioned against sweetened beverages, citing widely known associations between sugar consumption and poor health.

In an accompanying editorial, Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, pointed out a key detail from the data: the amount of sugar added to coffee in the U.K. study may be dwarfed by the amount consumed by some coffee drinkers across the pond.

“The average dose of added sugar per cup of sweetened coffee [in the study] was only a little over a teaspoon, or about 4 grams,” Dr. Wee wrote. “This is a far cry from the 15 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce cup of caramel macchiato at a popular U.S. coffee chain.”

Still, Dr. Wee, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the obesity research program in the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested that your typical coffee drinker can feel safe in their daily habit.

“The evidence does not suggest a need for most coffee drinkers – particularly those who drink it with no or modest amounts of sugar – to eliminate coffee,” she wrote. “So drink up – but it would be prudent to avoid too many caramel macchiatos while more evidence brews.”

Estefanía Toledo, MD, MPH, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, offered a similar takeaway.

Courtesy University of Navarra

“For those who enjoy drinking coffee, are not pregnant or lactating, and do not have special health conditions, coffee consumption could be considered part of a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Toledo said in a written comment. “I would recommend adding as little sugar as possible to coffee until more evidence has been accrued.”

Dr. Toledo, who previously published a study showing a link between coffee and extended survival, noted that moderate coffee consumption has “repeatedly” been associated with lower rates of “several chronic diseases” and death, but there still isn’t enough evidence to recommend coffee for those who don’t already drink it.

More long-term research is needed, Dr. Toledo said, ideally with studies comparing changes in coffee consumption and health outcomes over time. These may not be forthcoming, however, as such trials are “not easy and feasible to conduct.”

David Kao, MD, assistant professor of medicine-cardiology and medical director of the school of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the study conducted by Dr. Liu and colleagues is a “very well-executed analysis” that strengthens our confidence in the safety of long-term coffee consumption, even for patients with heart disease.

Dr. Kao, who recently published an analysis showing that higher coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, refrained from advising anyone to up their coffee quota.

“I remain cautious about stating too strongly that people should increase coffee intake purely to improve survival,” Dr. Kao said in a written comment. “That said, it does not appear harmful to increase it some, until you drink consistently more than six to seven cups per day.”

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, and others. Dr. Toledo and Dr. Kao disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

A new study suggests that very high levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may be associated with higher mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.

A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.

“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Inverse association?

HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.

Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.

To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.

Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.

Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.

Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).

“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”

Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).

Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Red flag

Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”

In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”

They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

A new study suggests that very high levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may be associated with higher mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.

A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.

“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Inverse association?

HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.

Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.

To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.

Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.

Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.

Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).

“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”

Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).

Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Red flag

Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”

In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”

They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

A new study suggests that very high levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may be associated with higher mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.

A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.

“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Inverse association?

HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.

Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.

To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.

Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.

Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.

Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).

“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”

Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).

Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Red flag

Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”

In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”

They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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