Cardiology News

Carrying excess weight is associated with an increased risk for certain heart problems even when there are no metabolic disturbances, data from a large French longitudinal study have shown.

In an analysis of almost 3 million people with no prior heart issues, there was a 34% increased risk for developing heart failure and a 33% increased risk for developing atrial fibrillation, it was reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There appeared to be no increase in the risk for heart attacks, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death, but the study’s 5-year follow-up period may have been too short to see such differences.

“Our findings highlight the importance of preventing poor metabolic health,” study investigator Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau (France), observed in a press release that highlighted his EASD presentation.

“Encouraging weight loss in people with obesity, regardless of whether or not they are ‘metabolically healthy,’ will help prevent atrial fibrillation and heart failure,” he suggested.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ – a misnomer?

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’, or MHO, has been suggested as a term to describe those who have a body mass index greater than 30 mg/m² but no obvious metabolic abnormalities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes. It’s a term that could cover around a third of people with obesity, but it’s one that not everyone agrees with.

“I don’t feel the label ‘MHO’ is useful,” Frederick Ho, PhD, who is part of team at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) that has done similar research in a U.K. population, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Ho

“Even if – and this is a big if– [people with obesity] are at no higher risk of heart attack or stroke, they are still at higher risk of many other diseases, including heart failure and respiratory diseases. The term ‘healthy’ is sometimes interpreted as no additional health risk at all, which is not true,” Dr. Ho, a research fellow in public health, qualified.
 

Hospital discharge records checked

For their analysis Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators obtained the medical records of all patients who had been discharged from French hospitals in 2013 and who had at least 5 years’ worth of follow-up data. For inclusion, there had to be no prior history of major cardiovascular events (MACE), which included myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemic stroke. Patients who were underweight or malnourished were excluded.

In all, around 2.8 million patients were included for the analysis, of whom 9.5% (n = 272,838) were classified as being obese and the remainder as ‘nonobese’ (n = 2,600,201). Patients were then subdivided according to whether they had diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, with those who did not have any of these conditions being classified as ‘metabolically healthy’ and those who had all three as ‘metabolically unhealthy.’

The results, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, showed that just under a third (32.8%) of the obese patients were ‘metabolically healthy,’ compared with 72.7% of those who were not obese.

The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for experiencing MACE with heart failure was 1.22 comparing those who were obese and ‘metabolically healthy’ with those who were not obese and had no metabolic abnormalities (95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.24). Corresponding aHRs for new-onset heart failure and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 1.34 (CI, 1.31-1.37) and 1.33 (CI, 1.30-1.37). For MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death aHRs were a respective 0.92 (CI, 0.87-0.98), 0.93 (CI, 0.88-0.98), and 0.99 (CI, 0.93-1.0).
 

Findings consistent with UK Biobank data

While these are observational associations that do not show cause and effect, they do agree with other recently published data from the UK Biobank as Dr. Ho pointed out. These data are “quite interesting and partly consistent with what we found previously, e.g., a higher heart failure risk,” he said.

“We’d expect people with ‘metabolically healthy’ obesity to develop heart attack and stroke a little later than those who were initially metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Ho noted, observing that the study was very large, but it does has a relatively short period of follow up.

“This is partly because quite a few of those with ‘MHO’ would become metabolically unhealthy after a few years,” Dr. Ho added.

Importantly, he noted, “this study has omitted several important confounders, such as physical activity and diet, which are both strong predictors of MHO and cardiovascular outcomes.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, FRSE, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, with whom Dr. Ho has collaborated, gave his thoughts on the topic in an interview.

“Carrying excess weight can give considerable risks for conditions such as heart failure or respiratory disease in ways (not yet fully understood) that are not captured by metabolic health factors,” he said.

“This means that even if someone were to be labeled as living with metabolically healthy obesity, losing weight may still benefit that individual in many ways and reduce their risk of several other important health outcomes. They may also feel better.” 

Furthermore, he added: “Our Glasgow team has therefore strongly cautioned on the use of the term metabolically healthy obesity, and these new data do not change our view.”

Dr. Fauchier has acted as a speaker or consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, and XO. Dr. Ho had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sattar has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

Carrying excess weight is associated with an increased risk for certain heart problems even when there are no metabolic disturbances, data from a large French longitudinal study have shown.

In an analysis of almost 3 million people with no prior heart issues, there was a 34% increased risk for developing heart failure and a 33% increased risk for developing atrial fibrillation, it was reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There appeared to be no increase in the risk for heart attacks, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death, but the study’s 5-year follow-up period may have been too short to see such differences.

“Our findings highlight the importance of preventing poor metabolic health,” study investigator Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau (France), observed in a press release that highlighted his EASD presentation.

“Encouraging weight loss in people with obesity, regardless of whether or not they are ‘metabolically healthy,’ will help prevent atrial fibrillation and heart failure,” he suggested.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ – a misnomer?

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’, or MHO, has been suggested as a term to describe those who have a body mass index greater than 30 mg/m² but no obvious metabolic abnormalities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes. It’s a term that could cover around a third of people with obesity, but it’s one that not everyone agrees with.

“I don’t feel the label ‘MHO’ is useful,” Frederick Ho, PhD, who is part of team at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) that has done similar research in a U.K. population, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Ho

“Even if – and this is a big if– [people with obesity] are at no higher risk of heart attack or stroke, they are still at higher risk of many other diseases, including heart failure and respiratory diseases. The term ‘healthy’ is sometimes interpreted as no additional health risk at all, which is not true,” Dr. Ho, a research fellow in public health, qualified.
 

Hospital discharge records checked

For their analysis Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators obtained the medical records of all patients who had been discharged from French hospitals in 2013 and who had at least 5 years’ worth of follow-up data. For inclusion, there had to be no prior history of major cardiovascular events (MACE), which included myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemic stroke. Patients who were underweight or malnourished were excluded.

In all, around 2.8 million patients were included for the analysis, of whom 9.5% (n = 272,838) were classified as being obese and the remainder as ‘nonobese’ (n = 2,600,201). Patients were then subdivided according to whether they had diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, with those who did not have any of these conditions being classified as ‘metabolically healthy’ and those who had all three as ‘metabolically unhealthy.’

The results, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, showed that just under a third (32.8%) of the obese patients were ‘metabolically healthy,’ compared with 72.7% of those who were not obese.

The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for experiencing MACE with heart failure was 1.22 comparing those who were obese and ‘metabolically healthy’ with those who were not obese and had no metabolic abnormalities (95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.24). Corresponding aHRs for new-onset heart failure and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 1.34 (CI, 1.31-1.37) and 1.33 (CI, 1.30-1.37). For MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death aHRs were a respective 0.92 (CI, 0.87-0.98), 0.93 (CI, 0.88-0.98), and 0.99 (CI, 0.93-1.0).
 

Findings consistent with UK Biobank data

While these are observational associations that do not show cause and effect, they do agree with other recently published data from the UK Biobank as Dr. Ho pointed out. These data are “quite interesting and partly consistent with what we found previously, e.g., a higher heart failure risk,” he said.

“We’d expect people with ‘metabolically healthy’ obesity to develop heart attack and stroke a little later than those who were initially metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Ho noted, observing that the study was very large, but it does has a relatively short period of follow up.

“This is partly because quite a few of those with ‘MHO’ would become metabolically unhealthy after a few years,” Dr. Ho added.

Importantly, he noted, “this study has omitted several important confounders, such as physical activity and diet, which are both strong predictors of MHO and cardiovascular outcomes.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, FRSE, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, with whom Dr. Ho has collaborated, gave his thoughts on the topic in an interview.

“Carrying excess weight can give considerable risks for conditions such as heart failure or respiratory disease in ways (not yet fully understood) that are not captured by metabolic health factors,” he said.

“This means that even if someone were to be labeled as living with metabolically healthy obesity, losing weight may still benefit that individual in many ways and reduce their risk of several other important health outcomes. They may also feel better.” 

Furthermore, he added: “Our Glasgow team has therefore strongly cautioned on the use of the term metabolically healthy obesity, and these new data do not change our view.”

Dr. Fauchier has acted as a speaker or consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, and XO. Dr. Ho had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sattar has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

Carrying excess weight is associated with an increased risk for certain heart problems even when there are no metabolic disturbances, data from a large French longitudinal study have shown.

In an analysis of almost 3 million people with no prior heart issues, there was a 34% increased risk for developing heart failure and a 33% increased risk for developing atrial fibrillation, it was reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There appeared to be no increase in the risk for heart attacks, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death, but the study’s 5-year follow-up period may have been too short to see such differences.

“Our findings highlight the importance of preventing poor metabolic health,” study investigator Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau (France), observed in a press release that highlighted his EASD presentation.

“Encouraging weight loss in people with obesity, regardless of whether or not they are ‘metabolically healthy,’ will help prevent atrial fibrillation and heart failure,” he suggested.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ – a misnomer?

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’, or MHO, has been suggested as a term to describe those who have a body mass index greater than 30 mg/m² but no obvious metabolic abnormalities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes. It’s a term that could cover around a third of people with obesity, but it’s one that not everyone agrees with.

“I don’t feel the label ‘MHO’ is useful,” Frederick Ho, PhD, who is part of team at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) that has done similar research in a U.K. population, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Ho

“Even if – and this is a big if– [people with obesity] are at no higher risk of heart attack or stroke, they are still at higher risk of many other diseases, including heart failure and respiratory diseases. The term ‘healthy’ is sometimes interpreted as no additional health risk at all, which is not true,” Dr. Ho, a research fellow in public health, qualified.
 

Hospital discharge records checked

For their analysis Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators obtained the medical records of all patients who had been discharged from French hospitals in 2013 and who had at least 5 years’ worth of follow-up data. For inclusion, there had to be no prior history of major cardiovascular events (MACE), which included myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemic stroke. Patients who were underweight or malnourished were excluded.

In all, around 2.8 million patients were included for the analysis, of whom 9.5% (n = 272,838) were classified as being obese and the remainder as ‘nonobese’ (n = 2,600,201). Patients were then subdivided according to whether they had diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, with those who did not have any of these conditions being classified as ‘metabolically healthy’ and those who had all three as ‘metabolically unhealthy.’

The results, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, showed that just under a third (32.8%) of the obese patients were ‘metabolically healthy,’ compared with 72.7% of those who were not obese.

The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for experiencing MACE with heart failure was 1.22 comparing those who were obese and ‘metabolically healthy’ with those who were not obese and had no metabolic abnormalities (95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.24). Corresponding aHRs for new-onset heart failure and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 1.34 (CI, 1.31-1.37) and 1.33 (CI, 1.30-1.37). For MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death aHRs were a respective 0.92 (CI, 0.87-0.98), 0.93 (CI, 0.88-0.98), and 0.99 (CI, 0.93-1.0).
 

Findings consistent with UK Biobank data

While these are observational associations that do not show cause and effect, they do agree with other recently published data from the UK Biobank as Dr. Ho pointed out. These data are “quite interesting and partly consistent with what we found previously, e.g., a higher heart failure risk,” he said.

“We’d expect people with ‘metabolically healthy’ obesity to develop heart attack and stroke a little later than those who were initially metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Ho noted, observing that the study was very large, but it does has a relatively short period of follow up.

“This is partly because quite a few of those with ‘MHO’ would become metabolically unhealthy after a few years,” Dr. Ho added.

Importantly, he noted, “this study has omitted several important confounders, such as physical activity and diet, which are both strong predictors of MHO and cardiovascular outcomes.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, FRSE, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, with whom Dr. Ho has collaborated, gave his thoughts on the topic in an interview.

“Carrying excess weight can give considerable risks for conditions such as heart failure or respiratory disease in ways (not yet fully understood) that are not captured by metabolic health factors,” he said.

“This means that even if someone were to be labeled as living with metabolically healthy obesity, losing weight may still benefit that individual in many ways and reduce their risk of several other important health outcomes. They may also feel better.” 

Furthermore, he added: “Our Glasgow team has therefore strongly cautioned on the use of the term metabolically healthy obesity, and these new data do not change our view.”

Dr. Fauchier has acted as a speaker or consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, and XO. Dr. Ho had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sattar has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

Among those with type 2 diabetes, women receive some cardioprotective treatments less often than men, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the REWIND trial, conducted in nearly 10,000 adults from 24 countries.

At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
 

Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”

“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.

Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.

The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.

“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.

REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.

But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
 

Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline

The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.

“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
 

A role for geography, or selection bias?

The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.

“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.

There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.

Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”

The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”

REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among those with type 2 diabetes, women receive some cardioprotective treatments less often than men, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the REWIND trial, conducted in nearly 10,000 adults from 24 countries.

At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
 

Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”

“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.

Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.

The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.

“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.

REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.

But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
 

Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline

The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.

“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
 

A role for geography, or selection bias?

The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.

“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.

There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.

Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”

The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”

REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among those with type 2 diabetes, women receive some cardioprotective treatments less often than men, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the REWIND trial, conducted in nearly 10,000 adults from 24 countries.

At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
 

Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”

“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.

Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.

The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.

“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.

REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.

But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
 

Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline

The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.

“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
 

A role for geography, or selection bias?

The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.

“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.

There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.

Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”

The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”

REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – where caloric intake is restricted within a consistent interval of less than 12 hours without overtly attempting to reduce calories – has “generated impressive [animal] data in preventing or reversing metabolic diseases associated with obesity,” and “more rigorous human studies are needed,” conclude the authors of a new review.

“Time-restricted eating is an easy-to-follow and effective dietary strategy that requires less mental math than counting calories,” said senior author Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Panda Lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif.

It “can improve sleep and a person’s quality of life as well as reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” he noted in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“People who are trying to lose weight and live a healthier lifestyle should pay more attention to when they eat as well as what they eat,” Dr. Panda advised.

Moreover, “eating at random times breaks the synchrony of our internal program [circadian clock] and make us prone to diseases,” so it is important to eat at consistent times.

Furthermore, time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, “is a lifestyle that anyone can adopt,” he noted, which “can help eliminate health disparities and lets everyone live a healthy and fulfilling life.”

The article, by Emily N. Manoogian, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same lab, and colleagues was published online Sept. 22 in Endocrine Reviews.

The authors suggest that health care providers should encourage high-risk patients (such as those with obesity) to monitor their eating and sleeping times and make easy-to-implement behavior changes, such as decreasing after-dinner snacking and going to bed at the same time each day.
 

Animal experiments, early studies in humans

In animal experiments, time-restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevented or attenuated the severity of metabolic diseases including obesity, glucose intolerance, hepatic steatosis, dyslipidemia, and age-related decline in cardiac function, Dr. Manoogian and colleagues report.

In pilot human studies, time-restricted eating with or without explicit calorie reduction was associated with reductions in body weight, glucose intolerance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

Most studies did not restrict calories or provide dietary recommendations, yet participants commonly reduced their caloric intake by 7%-22%.
 

39 published clinical trials, many upcoming ones

The authors identified 39 clinical trials of time-restricted eating, which were mostly published in the past 2 years, with the earliest one published in 2013.

Most studies were short and small (4-12 weeks, 10-20 participants) and were of people with obesity, healthy adults, and athletes. Most of the trials had an 8- to 10-hour daily “eating window.”

Body weight decreased in 24 of 39 studies, and “importantly,” time-restricted eating was feasible and safe in all studies, the authors note.

“Larger randomized controlled trials are needed as many of the studies to date are smaller pre-post or crossover trials,” Dr. Manoogian and colleagues summarize. “Yet, the replication of findings, even in diverse patient populations, speaks to the potential impact of [time-restricted eating] as a health intervention.”

The many ongoing international clinical trials of time-restricted eating that are listed on clinicaltrials.gov should improve our understanding of time-restricted eating, they add.

Some of the larger trials are in participants with prediabetes (344 participants, NCT03504683), diabetes (144 participants, NCT04155619), metabolic syndrome (118 participants, NCT04057339), and firefighters on 24-hour shifts (150 participants, NCT03533023). There are also smaller pilot studies in participants with cancer (NCT04243512) and polycystic ovary syndrome (NCT03792282).
 

Be consistent; do not eat within 3 hours of bedtime

In the meantime, the review authors offer several tips:

• Because high melatonin levels (late at night or early morning) can inhibit proper response to food, choose a time to eat that starts at least an hour after waking and stops at least 3 hours before bedtime. If you sleep 8 hours, that leaves 12 hours for the time-restricted eating window.
• Try to eat within the same time window each day.
• Some research suggests eating earlier in the eating phase is better than eating later.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the Larry l. Hillblom Foundation, the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dr. Panda has reported receiving royalties from his book, The Circadian Code. The other authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Time-restricted eating – where caloric intake is restricted within a consistent interval of less than 12 hours without overtly attempting to reduce calories – has “generated impressive [animal] data in preventing or reversing metabolic diseases associated with obesity,” and “more rigorous human studies are needed,” conclude the authors of a new review.

“Time-restricted eating is an easy-to-follow and effective dietary strategy that requires less mental math than counting calories,” said senior author Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Panda Lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif.

It “can improve sleep and a person’s quality of life as well as reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” he noted in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“People who are trying to lose weight and live a healthier lifestyle should pay more attention to when they eat as well as what they eat,” Dr. Panda advised.

Moreover, “eating at random times breaks the synchrony of our internal program [circadian clock] and make us prone to diseases,” so it is important to eat at consistent times.

Furthermore, time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, “is a lifestyle that anyone can adopt,” he noted, which “can help eliminate health disparities and lets everyone live a healthy and fulfilling life.”

The article, by Emily N. Manoogian, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same lab, and colleagues was published online Sept. 22 in Endocrine Reviews.

The authors suggest that health care providers should encourage high-risk patients (such as those with obesity) to monitor their eating and sleeping times and make easy-to-implement behavior changes, such as decreasing after-dinner snacking and going to bed at the same time each day.
 

Animal experiments, early studies in humans

In animal experiments, time-restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevented or attenuated the severity of metabolic diseases including obesity, glucose intolerance, hepatic steatosis, dyslipidemia, and age-related decline in cardiac function, Dr. Manoogian and colleagues report.

In pilot human studies, time-restricted eating with or without explicit calorie reduction was associated with reductions in body weight, glucose intolerance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

Most studies did not restrict calories or provide dietary recommendations, yet participants commonly reduced their caloric intake by 7%-22%.
 

39 published clinical trials, many upcoming ones

The authors identified 39 clinical trials of time-restricted eating, which were mostly published in the past 2 years, with the earliest one published in 2013.

Most studies were short and small (4-12 weeks, 10-20 participants) and were of people with obesity, healthy adults, and athletes. Most of the trials had an 8- to 10-hour daily “eating window.”

Body weight decreased in 24 of 39 studies, and “importantly,” time-restricted eating was feasible and safe in all studies, the authors note.

“Larger randomized controlled trials are needed as many of the studies to date are smaller pre-post or crossover trials,” Dr. Manoogian and colleagues summarize. “Yet, the replication of findings, even in diverse patient populations, speaks to the potential impact of [time-restricted eating] as a health intervention.”

The many ongoing international clinical trials of time-restricted eating that are listed on clinicaltrials.gov should improve our understanding of time-restricted eating, they add.

Some of the larger trials are in participants with prediabetes (344 participants, NCT03504683), diabetes (144 participants, NCT04155619), metabolic syndrome (118 participants, NCT04057339), and firefighters on 24-hour shifts (150 participants, NCT03533023). There are also smaller pilot studies in participants with cancer (NCT04243512) and polycystic ovary syndrome (NCT03792282).
 

Be consistent; do not eat within 3 hours of bedtime

In the meantime, the review authors offer several tips:

• Because high melatonin levels (late at night or early morning) can inhibit proper response to food, choose a time to eat that starts at least an hour after waking and stops at least 3 hours before bedtime. If you sleep 8 hours, that leaves 12 hours for the time-restricted eating window.
• Try to eat within the same time window each day.
• Some research suggests eating earlier in the eating phase is better than eating later.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the Larry l. Hillblom Foundation, the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dr. Panda has reported receiving royalties from his book, The Circadian Code. The other authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Time-restricted eating – where caloric intake is restricted within a consistent interval of less than 12 hours without overtly attempting to reduce calories – has “generated impressive [animal] data in preventing or reversing metabolic diseases associated with obesity,” and “more rigorous human studies are needed,” conclude the authors of a new review.

“Time-restricted eating is an easy-to-follow and effective dietary strategy that requires less mental math than counting calories,” said senior author Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Panda Lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif.

It “can improve sleep and a person’s quality of life as well as reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” he noted in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“People who are trying to lose weight and live a healthier lifestyle should pay more attention to when they eat as well as what they eat,” Dr. Panda advised.

Moreover, “eating at random times breaks the synchrony of our internal program [circadian clock] and make us prone to diseases,” so it is important to eat at consistent times.

Furthermore, time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, “is a lifestyle that anyone can adopt,” he noted, which “can help eliminate health disparities and lets everyone live a healthy and fulfilling life.”

The article, by Emily N. Manoogian, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same lab, and colleagues was published online Sept. 22 in Endocrine Reviews.

The authors suggest that health care providers should encourage high-risk patients (such as those with obesity) to monitor their eating and sleeping times and make easy-to-implement behavior changes, such as decreasing after-dinner snacking and going to bed at the same time each day.
 

Animal experiments, early studies in humans

In animal experiments, time-restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevented or attenuated the severity of metabolic diseases including obesity, glucose intolerance, hepatic steatosis, dyslipidemia, and age-related decline in cardiac function, Dr. Manoogian and colleagues report.

In pilot human studies, time-restricted eating with or without explicit calorie reduction was associated with reductions in body weight, glucose intolerance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

Most studies did not restrict calories or provide dietary recommendations, yet participants commonly reduced their caloric intake by 7%-22%.
 

39 published clinical trials, many upcoming ones

The authors identified 39 clinical trials of time-restricted eating, which were mostly published in the past 2 years, with the earliest one published in 2013.

Most studies were short and small (4-12 weeks, 10-20 participants) and were of people with obesity, healthy adults, and athletes. Most of the trials had an 8- to 10-hour daily “eating window.”

Body weight decreased in 24 of 39 studies, and “importantly,” time-restricted eating was feasible and safe in all studies, the authors note.

“Larger randomized controlled trials are needed as many of the studies to date are smaller pre-post or crossover trials,” Dr. Manoogian and colleagues summarize. “Yet, the replication of findings, even in diverse patient populations, speaks to the potential impact of [time-restricted eating] as a health intervention.”

The many ongoing international clinical trials of time-restricted eating that are listed on clinicaltrials.gov should improve our understanding of time-restricted eating, they add.

Some of the larger trials are in participants with prediabetes (344 participants, NCT03504683), diabetes (144 participants, NCT04155619), metabolic syndrome (118 participants, NCT04057339), and firefighters on 24-hour shifts (150 participants, NCT03533023). There are also smaller pilot studies in participants with cancer (NCT04243512) and polycystic ovary syndrome (NCT03792282).
 

Be consistent; do not eat within 3 hours of bedtime

In the meantime, the review authors offer several tips:

• Because high melatonin levels (late at night or early morning) can inhibit proper response to food, choose a time to eat that starts at least an hour after waking and stops at least 3 hours before bedtime. If you sleep 8 hours, that leaves 12 hours for the time-restricted eating window.
• Try to eat within the same time window each day.
• Some research suggests eating earlier in the eating phase is better than eating later.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the Larry l. Hillblom Foundation, the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dr. Panda has reported receiving royalties from his book, The Circadian Code. The other authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Smokers are 80% more likely to be admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 than nonsmokers, according to an Oxford (England) University–led study.

Observational data was analyzed alongside hospital coronavirus test data and UK Biobank genetic information for the first time, and the findings are published in Thorax.

The data cover 421,469 people overall. Of these, 3.2% took a polymerase chain reaction swab test, 0.4% of these tested positive, 0.2% of them required hospitalization for COVID-19, and 0.1% of them died because of COVID-19.

When it came to smoking status, 59% had never smoked, 37% were ex-smokers, and 3% were current smokers.

Current smokers were 80% more likely to be admitted to hospital, and significantly more likely to die from COVID-19, than nonsmokers.
 

Time to quit

Heavy smokers who smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day were 6.11 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who had never smoked.

Analysis also showed those with a genetic predisposition to being smokers had a 45% higher infection risk, and 60% higher hospitalization risk.

The authors wrote: “Overall, the congruence of observational analyses indicating associations with recent smoking behaviors and [Mendelian randomization] analyses indicating associations with lifelong predisposition to smoking and smoking heaviness support a causal effect of smoking on COVID-19 severity.”

In a linked podcast, lead researcher Dr. Ashley Clift, said: “Our results strongly suggest that smoking is related to your risk of getting severe COVID, and just as smoking affects your risk of heart disease, different cancers, and all those other conditions we know smoking is linked to, it appears that it’s the same for COVID. So now might be as good a time as any to quit cigarettes and quit smoking.”

These results contrast with previous studies that have suggested a protective effect of smoking against COVID-19. In a linked editorial,  Anthony Laverty, PhD, and Christopher Millet, PhD, Imperial College London, wrote: “The idea that tobacco smoking may protect against COVID-19 was always an improbable one.”

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

Smokers are 80% more likely to be admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 than nonsmokers, according to an Oxford (England) University–led study.

Observational data was analyzed alongside hospital coronavirus test data and UK Biobank genetic information for the first time, and the findings are published in Thorax.

The data cover 421,469 people overall. Of these, 3.2% took a polymerase chain reaction swab test, 0.4% of these tested positive, 0.2% of them required hospitalization for COVID-19, and 0.1% of them died because of COVID-19.

When it came to smoking status, 59% had never smoked, 37% were ex-smokers, and 3% were current smokers.

Current smokers were 80% more likely to be admitted to hospital, and significantly more likely to die from COVID-19, than nonsmokers.
 

Time to quit

Heavy smokers who smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day were 6.11 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who had never smoked.

Analysis also showed those with a genetic predisposition to being smokers had a 45% higher infection risk, and 60% higher hospitalization risk.

The authors wrote: “Overall, the congruence of observational analyses indicating associations with recent smoking behaviors and [Mendelian randomization] analyses indicating associations with lifelong predisposition to smoking and smoking heaviness support a causal effect of smoking on COVID-19 severity.”

In a linked podcast, lead researcher Dr. Ashley Clift, said: “Our results strongly suggest that smoking is related to your risk of getting severe COVID, and just as smoking affects your risk of heart disease, different cancers, and all those other conditions we know smoking is linked to, it appears that it’s the same for COVID. So now might be as good a time as any to quit cigarettes and quit smoking.”

These results contrast with previous studies that have suggested a protective effect of smoking against COVID-19. In a linked editorial,  Anthony Laverty, PhD, and Christopher Millet, PhD, Imperial College London, wrote: “The idea that tobacco smoking may protect against COVID-19 was always an improbable one.”

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

Smokers are 80% more likely to be admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 than nonsmokers, according to an Oxford (England) University–led study.

Observational data was analyzed alongside hospital coronavirus test data and UK Biobank genetic information for the first time, and the findings are published in Thorax.

The data cover 421,469 people overall. Of these, 3.2% took a polymerase chain reaction swab test, 0.4% of these tested positive, 0.2% of them required hospitalization for COVID-19, and 0.1% of them died because of COVID-19.

When it came to smoking status, 59% had never smoked, 37% were ex-smokers, and 3% were current smokers.

Current smokers were 80% more likely to be admitted to hospital, and significantly more likely to die from COVID-19, than nonsmokers.
 

Time to quit

Heavy smokers who smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day were 6.11 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who had never smoked.

Analysis also showed those with a genetic predisposition to being smokers had a 45% higher infection risk, and 60% higher hospitalization risk.

The authors wrote: “Overall, the congruence of observational analyses indicating associations with recent smoking behaviors and [Mendelian randomization] analyses indicating associations with lifelong predisposition to smoking and smoking heaviness support a causal effect of smoking on COVID-19 severity.”

In a linked podcast, lead researcher Dr. Ashley Clift, said: “Our results strongly suggest that smoking is related to your risk of getting severe COVID, and just as smoking affects your risk of heart disease, different cancers, and all those other conditions we know smoking is linked to, it appears that it’s the same for COVID. So now might be as good a time as any to quit cigarettes and quit smoking.”

These results contrast with previous studies that have suggested a protective effect of smoking against COVID-19. In a linked editorial,  Anthony Laverty, PhD, and Christopher Millet, PhD, Imperial College London, wrote: “The idea that tobacco smoking may protect against COVID-19 was always an improbable one.”

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

Avanos medical to pay $22 million to resolve criminal charge for fraudulent misbranding of PPE

A U.S.-based multinational medical device corporation will pay more than $22 million to resolve a criminal charge regarding fraudulent misbranding of their surgical gowns.

Avanos Medical Inc, which as its U.S. headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia, is charged with one count of introducing misbranded surgical gowns into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead.

According to the Department of Justice, the company knowingly falsely labeled its MicroCool surgical gowns as providing AAMI Level 4 protection (the highest level) against fluid and virus penetration. Under the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), the highest protection level for surgical gowns is reserved for gowns intended to be used in surgeries and other high-risk medical procedures on patients suspected of having infectious diseases.

Avanos admitted to selling hundreds of thousands of MicroCool gowns that were falsely labeled as AAMI Level 4 between late 2014 and early 2015, as well as directly lying to customers about the gowns’ protective capacities. In total, Avanos sold almost $9 million of misbranded MicroCool gowns.

“The last thing health care workers should have to worry about is whether their personal protective equipment lives up to manufacturers’ claims,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Prerak Shah for the Northern District of Texas. “Misbranded PPE can pose serious risks to medical professionals and patients alike.”
 

Company pays $38.75 million to settle allegations of knowingly selling defective devices 

Medical device manufacturers Alere and Alere San Diego (collectively, Alere) have agreed to pay almost $39 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by billing, and causing others to bill, the Medicare program for defective rapid point-of-care testing devices. 

From 2008 to 2016, the Department of Justice alleges, Alere knowingly sold defective INRatio blood coagulation monitors used by Medicare beneficiaries who were taking anticoagulants. The software algorithms in the monitors contained a material defect, which Alere had found in their research, to cause inaccurate readings. Blood coagulation monitoring is essential for the safety of these patients, enabling them to maintain a safe dosage of their medications. Taking too much of an anticoagulant can cause major bleeding, while taking too little can cause blood clots that lead to strokes. 

While Alere was aware that these devices were linked to over a dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries, the company continued to conceal the defect and billed Medicare for the devices.

In 2016, the product was taken off the market at the request of the FDA.
 

Mass. doctor, wife charged in international money laundering, fraud scheme

Massachusetts psychiatrist Rahim Shafa, MD, and his wife and office manager, Nahid Tormosi Shafa, are charged in connection to an international money laundering scheme involving importing illegal and misbranded drugs. 

Through Shafa’s company, Novel Psychopharmacology, the two allegedly filed false and fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims from 2016-2019, then deposited the money in their bank accounts, according to federal officials. From 2008-2018, the couple also engaged in an international money laundering scheme to purchase naltrexone pellet implants, disulfiram pellet implants, and injections from Hong Kong that were not approved by the FDA. According to officials, they falsified shipping documents, disguising the naltrexone pellet implants as “plastic beads in plastic tubes” to receive the drugs. They then offered to sell these drugs to patients of Novel Psychopharmacology. 

Rahim Shafa was indicted on conspiracies of international money laundering, health care fraud, and defrauding the United States, as well as illegally importing merchandise and purposely delivering misbranded drugs. His wife was indicted on one count each of health care fraud conspiracy and international money laundering conspiracy.
 

Jury convicts medical equipment company owners of $27 million fraud

A federal jury in Texas convicted the owners of two durable medical equipment (DME) companies linked to a scheme to defraud Medicare.

Leah Hagen, 49, and Michael Hagen, 54, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The defendants owned and operated Metro DME Supply and Ortho Pain Solutions. 

Ms. Hagen and Mr. Hagen paid a fixed rate per DME item in exchange for prescriptions and paperwork completed by telemedicine doctors that were used to submit false claims to Medicare, which totaled about $59 million. They were paid $27 million, and wired millions to their personal bank accounts. The defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks and wired money to their co-conspirator’s call center in the Philippines that provided signed doctor’s orders for orthotic braces. 

At trial, evidence showed emails between Leah and Michael Hagen and their co-conspirators outlining a per-product pricing structure for orthotic braces, but not disclosing their agreement as one for marketing and other services.

At sentencing, the Hagens each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

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

Avanos medical to pay $22 million to resolve criminal charge for fraudulent misbranding of PPE

A U.S.-based multinational medical device corporation will pay more than $22 million to resolve a criminal charge regarding fraudulent misbranding of their surgical gowns.

Avanos Medical Inc, which as its U.S. headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia, is charged with one count of introducing misbranded surgical gowns into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead.

According to the Department of Justice, the company knowingly falsely labeled its MicroCool surgical gowns as providing AAMI Level 4 protection (the highest level) against fluid and virus penetration. Under the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), the highest protection level for surgical gowns is reserved for gowns intended to be used in surgeries and other high-risk medical procedures on patients suspected of having infectious diseases.

Avanos admitted to selling hundreds of thousands of MicroCool gowns that were falsely labeled as AAMI Level 4 between late 2014 and early 2015, as well as directly lying to customers about the gowns’ protective capacities. In total, Avanos sold almost $9 million of misbranded MicroCool gowns.

“The last thing health care workers should have to worry about is whether their personal protective equipment lives up to manufacturers’ claims,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Prerak Shah for the Northern District of Texas. “Misbranded PPE can pose serious risks to medical professionals and patients alike.”
 

Company pays $38.75 million to settle allegations of knowingly selling defective devices 

Medical device manufacturers Alere and Alere San Diego (collectively, Alere) have agreed to pay almost $39 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by billing, and causing others to bill, the Medicare program for defective rapid point-of-care testing devices. 

From 2008 to 2016, the Department of Justice alleges, Alere knowingly sold defective INRatio blood coagulation monitors used by Medicare beneficiaries who were taking anticoagulants. The software algorithms in the monitors contained a material defect, which Alere had found in their research, to cause inaccurate readings. Blood coagulation monitoring is essential for the safety of these patients, enabling them to maintain a safe dosage of their medications. Taking too much of an anticoagulant can cause major bleeding, while taking too little can cause blood clots that lead to strokes. 

While Alere was aware that these devices were linked to over a dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries, the company continued to conceal the defect and billed Medicare for the devices.

In 2016, the product was taken off the market at the request of the FDA.
 

Mass. doctor, wife charged in international money laundering, fraud scheme

Massachusetts psychiatrist Rahim Shafa, MD, and his wife and office manager, Nahid Tormosi Shafa, are charged in connection to an international money laundering scheme involving importing illegal and misbranded drugs. 

Through Shafa’s company, Novel Psychopharmacology, the two allegedly filed false and fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims from 2016-2019, then deposited the money in their bank accounts, according to federal officials. From 2008-2018, the couple also engaged in an international money laundering scheme to purchase naltrexone pellet implants, disulfiram pellet implants, and injections from Hong Kong that were not approved by the FDA. According to officials, they falsified shipping documents, disguising the naltrexone pellet implants as “plastic beads in plastic tubes” to receive the drugs. They then offered to sell these drugs to patients of Novel Psychopharmacology. 

Rahim Shafa was indicted on conspiracies of international money laundering, health care fraud, and defrauding the United States, as well as illegally importing merchandise and purposely delivering misbranded drugs. His wife was indicted on one count each of health care fraud conspiracy and international money laundering conspiracy.
 

Jury convicts medical equipment company owners of $27 million fraud

A federal jury in Texas convicted the owners of two durable medical equipment (DME) companies linked to a scheme to defraud Medicare.

Leah Hagen, 49, and Michael Hagen, 54, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The defendants owned and operated Metro DME Supply and Ortho Pain Solutions. 

Ms. Hagen and Mr. Hagen paid a fixed rate per DME item in exchange for prescriptions and paperwork completed by telemedicine doctors that were used to submit false claims to Medicare, which totaled about $59 million. They were paid $27 million, and wired millions to their personal bank accounts. The defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks and wired money to their co-conspirator’s call center in the Philippines that provided signed doctor’s orders for orthotic braces. 

At trial, evidence showed emails between Leah and Michael Hagen and their co-conspirators outlining a per-product pricing structure for orthotic braces, but not disclosing their agreement as one for marketing and other services.

At sentencing, the Hagens each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

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

Avanos medical to pay $22 million to resolve criminal charge for fraudulent misbranding of PPE

A U.S.-based multinational medical device corporation will pay more than $22 million to resolve a criminal charge regarding fraudulent misbranding of their surgical gowns.

Avanos Medical Inc, which as its U.S. headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia, is charged with one count of introducing misbranded surgical gowns into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead.

According to the Department of Justice, the company knowingly falsely labeled its MicroCool surgical gowns as providing AAMI Level 4 protection (the highest level) against fluid and virus penetration. Under the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), the highest protection level for surgical gowns is reserved for gowns intended to be used in surgeries and other high-risk medical procedures on patients suspected of having infectious diseases.

Avanos admitted to selling hundreds of thousands of MicroCool gowns that were falsely labeled as AAMI Level 4 between late 2014 and early 2015, as well as directly lying to customers about the gowns’ protective capacities. In total, Avanos sold almost $9 million of misbranded MicroCool gowns.

“The last thing health care workers should have to worry about is whether their personal protective equipment lives up to manufacturers’ claims,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Prerak Shah for the Northern District of Texas. “Misbranded PPE can pose serious risks to medical professionals and patients alike.”
 

Company pays $38.75 million to settle allegations of knowingly selling defective devices 

Medical device manufacturers Alere and Alere San Diego (collectively, Alere) have agreed to pay almost $39 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by billing, and causing others to bill, the Medicare program for defective rapid point-of-care testing devices. 

From 2008 to 2016, the Department of Justice alleges, Alere knowingly sold defective INRatio blood coagulation monitors used by Medicare beneficiaries who were taking anticoagulants. The software algorithms in the monitors contained a material defect, which Alere had found in their research, to cause inaccurate readings. Blood coagulation monitoring is essential for the safety of these patients, enabling them to maintain a safe dosage of their medications. Taking too much of an anticoagulant can cause major bleeding, while taking too little can cause blood clots that lead to strokes. 

While Alere was aware that these devices were linked to over a dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries, the company continued to conceal the defect and billed Medicare for the devices.

In 2016, the product was taken off the market at the request of the FDA.
 

Mass. doctor, wife charged in international money laundering, fraud scheme

Massachusetts psychiatrist Rahim Shafa, MD, and his wife and office manager, Nahid Tormosi Shafa, are charged in connection to an international money laundering scheme involving importing illegal and misbranded drugs. 

Through Shafa’s company, Novel Psychopharmacology, the two allegedly filed false and fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims from 2016-2019, then deposited the money in their bank accounts, according to federal officials. From 2008-2018, the couple also engaged in an international money laundering scheme to purchase naltrexone pellet implants, disulfiram pellet implants, and injections from Hong Kong that were not approved by the FDA. According to officials, they falsified shipping documents, disguising the naltrexone pellet implants as “plastic beads in plastic tubes” to receive the drugs. They then offered to sell these drugs to patients of Novel Psychopharmacology. 

Rahim Shafa was indicted on conspiracies of international money laundering, health care fraud, and defrauding the United States, as well as illegally importing merchandise and purposely delivering misbranded drugs. His wife was indicted on one count each of health care fraud conspiracy and international money laundering conspiracy.
 

Jury convicts medical equipment company owners of $27 million fraud

A federal jury in Texas convicted the owners of two durable medical equipment (DME) companies linked to a scheme to defraud Medicare.

Leah Hagen, 49, and Michael Hagen, 54, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The defendants owned and operated Metro DME Supply and Ortho Pain Solutions. 

Ms. Hagen and Mr. Hagen paid a fixed rate per DME item in exchange for prescriptions and paperwork completed by telemedicine doctors that were used to submit false claims to Medicare, which totaled about $59 million. They were paid $27 million, and wired millions to their personal bank accounts. The defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks and wired money to their co-conspirator’s call center in the Philippines that provided signed doctor’s orders for orthotic braces. 

At trial, evidence showed emails between Leah and Michael Hagen and their co-conspirators outlining a per-product pricing structure for orthotic braces, but not disclosing their agreement as one for marketing and other services.

At sentencing, the Hagens each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

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

Women with a history of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are more likely to experience somatic and urogenital symptoms post menopause, but they were no more likely to experience severe hot flashes than were other women with similar characteristics, according to research presented Sept. 24 at the hybrid annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society.

PCOS and vasomotor symptoms are each risk factors for cardiovascular disease, so researchers wanted to find out whether they were linked to one another, which might indicate that they are markers for the same underlying mechanisms that increase heart disease risk. The lack of an association, however, raises questions about how much each of these conditions might independently increase cardiovascular risk.

“Should we take a little more time to truly risk-assess these patients not just with their ASCVD risk score, but take into account that they have PCOS and they’re going through menopause, and how severe their hot flashes are?” asked Angie S. Lobo, MD, an internal medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., when she discussed her findings in an interview.

The association between PCOS and urogenital symptoms was surprising, Dr. Lobo said, but she said she suspects the reason for the finding may be the self-reported nature of the study.

“If you ask the question, you get the answer,” Dr. Lobo said. ”Are we just not asking the right questions to our patients? And should we be doing this more often? This is an exciting finding because there’s so much room to improve the clinical care of our patients.”

The researchers analyzed data from 3,308 women, ages 45-60, in a cross-sectional study from the Data Registry on the Experiences of Aging, Menopause, and Sexuality (DREAMS). The study occurred at Mayo Clinic locations between May 2015 and December 2019 in Rochester, Minn., in Scottsdale, Ariz., and in Jacksonville, Fla.

The women were an average 53 years old and were primarily White, educated, and postmenopausal. Among the 4.6% of women with a self-reported history of PCOS, 56% of them reported depression symptoms, compared to 42% of women without PCOS. Those with PCOS also had nearly twice the prevalence of obesity – 42% versus 22.5% among women without PCOS – and had a higher average overall score on the Menopause Rating Scale (17.7 vs. 14.7; P < .001).

Although women with PCOS initially had a greater burden of psychological symptoms on the same scale, that association disappeared after adjustment for menopause status, body mass index, depression, anxiety, and current use of hormone therapy. Even after adjustment, however, women with PCOS had higher average scores for somatic symptoms (6.7 vs. 5.6) and urogenital symptoms (5.2 vs. 4.3) than those of women without PCOS (P < .001).

Severe or very severe hot flashes were no more likely in women with a history of PCOS than in the other women in the study.

”The mechanisms underlying the correlation between PCOS and menopause symptoms in the psychological and urogenital symptom domains requires further study, although the well-known association between PCOS and mood disorders may explain the high psychological symptom burden in these women during the menopause transition,” the authors concluded.

Rachael B. Smith, DO, clinical assistant professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was not surprised to see an association between PCOS and menopause symptoms overall, but she was surprised that PCOS did not correlate with severity of vasomotor symptoms. But Dr. Smith pointed out that the sample size of women with PCOS is fairly small (n = 151).

“Given that PCOS prevalence is about 6%-10%, I feel this association should be further studied to improve our counseling and treatment for this PCOS population,” Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “The take-home message for physicians is improved patient-tailored counseling that takes into account patients’ prior medical history of PCOS.”

Although it will require more research to find out, Dr. Smith said she suspects that PCOS and vasomotor symptoms are additive risk factors for cardiovascular disease. She also noted that the study is limited by the homogeneity of the study population.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lobo and Dr. Smith had no disclosures.

Women with a history of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are more likely to experience somatic and urogenital symptoms post menopause, but they were no more likely to experience severe hot flashes than were other women with similar characteristics, according to research presented Sept. 24 at the hybrid annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society.

PCOS and vasomotor symptoms are each risk factors for cardiovascular disease, so researchers wanted to find out whether they were linked to one another, which might indicate that they are markers for the same underlying mechanisms that increase heart disease risk. The lack of an association, however, raises questions about how much each of these conditions might independently increase cardiovascular risk.

“Should we take a little more time to truly risk-assess these patients not just with their ASCVD risk score, but take into account that they have PCOS and they’re going through menopause, and how severe their hot flashes are?” asked Angie S. Lobo, MD, an internal medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., when she discussed her findings in an interview.

The association between PCOS and urogenital symptoms was surprising, Dr. Lobo said, but she said she suspects the reason for the finding may be the self-reported nature of the study.

“If you ask the question, you get the answer,” Dr. Lobo said. ”Are we just not asking the right questions to our patients? And should we be doing this more often? This is an exciting finding because there’s so much room to improve the clinical care of our patients.”

The researchers analyzed data from 3,308 women, ages 45-60, in a cross-sectional study from the Data Registry on the Experiences of Aging, Menopause, and Sexuality (DREAMS). The study occurred at Mayo Clinic locations between May 2015 and December 2019 in Rochester, Minn., in Scottsdale, Ariz., and in Jacksonville, Fla.

The women were an average 53 years old and were primarily White, educated, and postmenopausal. Among the 4.6% of women with a self-reported history of PCOS, 56% of them reported depression symptoms, compared to 42% of women without PCOS. Those with PCOS also had nearly twice the prevalence of obesity – 42% versus 22.5% among women without PCOS – and had a higher average overall score on the Menopause Rating Scale (17.7 vs. 14.7; P < .001).

Although women with PCOS initially had a greater burden of psychological symptoms on the same scale, that association disappeared after adjustment for menopause status, body mass index, depression, anxiety, and current use of hormone therapy. Even after adjustment, however, women with PCOS had higher average scores for somatic symptoms (6.7 vs. 5.6) and urogenital symptoms (5.2 vs. 4.3) than those of women without PCOS (P < .001).

Severe or very severe hot flashes were no more likely in women with a history of PCOS than in the other women in the study.

”The mechanisms underlying the correlation between PCOS and menopause symptoms in the psychological and urogenital symptom domains requires further study, although the well-known association between PCOS and mood disorders may explain the high psychological symptom burden in these women during the menopause transition,” the authors concluded.

Rachael B. Smith, DO, clinical assistant professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was not surprised to see an association between PCOS and menopause symptoms overall, but she was surprised that PCOS did not correlate with severity of vasomotor symptoms. But Dr. Smith pointed out that the sample size of women with PCOS is fairly small (n = 151).

“Given that PCOS prevalence is about 6%-10%, I feel this association should be further studied to improve our counseling and treatment for this PCOS population,” Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “The take-home message for physicians is improved patient-tailored counseling that takes into account patients’ prior medical history of PCOS.”

Although it will require more research to find out, Dr. Smith said she suspects that PCOS and vasomotor symptoms are additive risk factors for cardiovascular disease. She also noted that the study is limited by the homogeneity of the study population.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lobo and Dr. Smith had no disclosures.

Women with a history of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are more likely to experience somatic and urogenital symptoms post menopause, but they were no more likely to experience severe hot flashes than were other women with similar characteristics, according to research presented Sept. 24 at the hybrid annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society.

PCOS and vasomotor symptoms are each risk factors for cardiovascular disease, so researchers wanted to find out whether they were linked to one another, which might indicate that they are markers for the same underlying mechanisms that increase heart disease risk. The lack of an association, however, raises questions about how much each of these conditions might independently increase cardiovascular risk.

“Should we take a little more time to truly risk-assess these patients not just with their ASCVD risk score, but take into account that they have PCOS and they’re going through menopause, and how severe their hot flashes are?” asked Angie S. Lobo, MD, an internal medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., when she discussed her findings in an interview.

The association between PCOS and urogenital symptoms was surprising, Dr. Lobo said, but she said she suspects the reason for the finding may be the self-reported nature of the study.

“If you ask the question, you get the answer,” Dr. Lobo said. ”Are we just not asking the right questions to our patients? And should we be doing this more often? This is an exciting finding because there’s so much room to improve the clinical care of our patients.”

The researchers analyzed data from 3,308 women, ages 45-60, in a cross-sectional study from the Data Registry on the Experiences of Aging, Menopause, and Sexuality (DREAMS). The study occurred at Mayo Clinic locations between May 2015 and December 2019 in Rochester, Minn., in Scottsdale, Ariz., and in Jacksonville, Fla.

The women were an average 53 years old and were primarily White, educated, and postmenopausal. Among the 4.6% of women with a self-reported history of PCOS, 56% of them reported depression symptoms, compared to 42% of women without PCOS. Those with PCOS also had nearly twice the prevalence of obesity – 42% versus 22.5% among women without PCOS – and had a higher average overall score on the Menopause Rating Scale (17.7 vs. 14.7; P < .001).

Although women with PCOS initially had a greater burden of psychological symptoms on the same scale, that association disappeared after adjustment for menopause status, body mass index, depression, anxiety, and current use of hormone therapy. Even after adjustment, however, women with PCOS had higher average scores for somatic symptoms (6.7 vs. 5.6) and urogenital symptoms (5.2 vs. 4.3) than those of women without PCOS (P < .001).

Severe or very severe hot flashes were no more likely in women with a history of PCOS than in the other women in the study.

”The mechanisms underlying the correlation between PCOS and menopause symptoms in the psychological and urogenital symptom domains requires further study, although the well-known association between PCOS and mood disorders may explain the high psychological symptom burden in these women during the menopause transition,” the authors concluded.

Rachael B. Smith, DO, clinical assistant professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was not surprised to see an association between PCOS and menopause symptoms overall, but she was surprised that PCOS did not correlate with severity of vasomotor symptoms. But Dr. Smith pointed out that the sample size of women with PCOS is fairly small (n = 151).

“Given that PCOS prevalence is about 6%-10%, I feel this association should be further studied to improve our counseling and treatment for this PCOS population,” Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “The take-home message for physicians is improved patient-tailored counseling that takes into account patients’ prior medical history of PCOS.”

Although it will require more research to find out, Dr. Smith said she suspects that PCOS and vasomotor symptoms are additive risk factors for cardiovascular disease. She also noted that the study is limited by the homogeneity of the study population.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lobo and Dr. Smith had no disclosures.

Physical activity, long recommended by health experts to reduce risk for obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, hypercholesterolemia, and other cardiovascular disease risk factors, is also associated with increases in the amount of calcium deposited in the coronary arteries, new observational data suggest.

In a prospective cohort study of Korean men and women 18 years and older, participants who were the most physically active had the fastest progression of their coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores at 5 years, compared with those who were the least physically active.

“People who exercise may have an increase in their coronary calcium levels, but this is not necessarily bad news. This may mean that atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary arteries are becoming more stable and less dangerous, but we need additional research to understand these changes,” Eliseo Guallar, MD, PhD, professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview.

This paradoxical effect notwithstanding, doctors should continue to advise their patients to follow the physical activity guidelines for Americans that were published in 2018, Dr. Guallar said.

“Physical activity is a key component of a healthy lifestyle. Our analysis can be useful, however, if someone starts exercising and sees that his or her coronary calcium score goes up,” he said.

The study is published online September 20 in Heart.

The degree of build-up of calcium deposits in the coronary arteries is used to determine future cardiovascular disease risk and to guide treatment to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke. A CAC score of at least 100 Agatston units indicates that treatment with statins is warranted, the researchers write.

In the current study, investigators — led by Ki-Chul Sung, MD, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and Yun Soo Hong, MD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore — explored the link between different degrees of physical activity and the progression of CAC scores in healthy adults.

“While physical activity improves a wide array of cardiovascular and metabolic biomarkers, endurance athletes were more likely to have a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score >300 Agatston units or coronary plaques compared with sedentary men with a similar risk profile. It is not clear if exercise may itself be associated with calcification of the arteries,” the authors write.

The researchers studied 25,485 participants (22,741 men and 2,744 women) who were part of the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study. All were free of cardiovascular disease at study entry and underwent comprehensive health screening exams at one of two major health centers in Seoul and Suwon, South Korea, between March 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017.

At each exam, participants filled out a questionnaire that included questions on medical and family history, smoking habits, alcohol intake, and education level.

Participants were also quizzed at baseline about their physical activity, using the Korean version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF).

On the basis of that, they were categorized into one of three categories: inactive; moderately active, defined as at least 3 days of vigorous-intensity activity for at least 20 min/day or at least 5 days of moderate-intensity activity or walking for at least 30 min/ day or at least 5 days of any combination of walking and moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities, attaining at least 600 MET-min/week; or health-enhancing physically active (HEPA), defined as at least 3 days of vigorous-intensity activity, attaining at least 1,500 MET-min/week or 7 days of any combination of walking or moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities, attaining at least 3000 MET-min/week.  

Of the study participants, 47% were classified as inactive, 38% as moderately active, and 15% as HEPA.

Those who were more physically active tended to be older and less likely to smoke than less physically active participants. They also had lower total cholesterol, more hypertension, and existing evidence of calcium deposits in their coronary arteries.

A graded association between physical activity level and the prevalence and progression of coronary artery calcification was seen, irrespective of CAC scores at the start of monitoring.

At baseline, the estimated adjusted average baseline CAC scores in inactive participants was 9.45 (95% CI, 8.76 - 10.14), in moderately active participants was 10.20 (95% CI, 9.40 - 11.00), and in HEPA participants was 12.04 (95% CI, 10.81 - 13.26).

Compared with the least active participants, the estimated adjusted 5-year average increases in CAC was 3.20 (95% CI, 0.72 - 5.69) in moderately active participants and 8.16 (95% CI, 4.80 - 11.53) in HEPA participants.

A higher level of physical activity was associated with faster progression of CAC scores, both in participants with CAC score of 0 at baseline and in those with prevalent CAC.

The authors note there are several limitations to consider when interpreting their findings. These include the absence of an objective assessment of physical activity, the inability to evaluate the association between physical activity and CAC levels with incident cardiovascular events because of a lack of data, and the lack of information on incident myocardial infarction, stroke, CAC density, or volume.

Physical activity might increase coronary atherosclerosis through mechanical stress and vessel wall injury of coronary arteries; physiologic responses during exercise, such as increased blood pressure; increased parathyroid hormone levels; and changes in coronary hemodynamics and inflammation. “In addition, other factors, such as diet, vitamins, and minerals, may change with physical activity,” the authors write.

“The second possibility is that physical activity may increase CAC scores without increasing cardiovascular disease risk,” they write.

“The cardiovascular benefits of physical activity are unquestionable,” the authors emphasize, adding that the national guidelines recommend at least 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity or 75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity.

“Patients and physicians, however, need to consider that engaging in physical activity may accelerate the progression of coronary calcium, possibly due to plaque healing, stabilization and calcification,” they conclude.

Dr. Guallar added: “We would like to link our research to clinical outcomes, so that we can really be sure that the increase in coronary calcium scores does not imply an increase in risk.”

“Do these findings mean that we should stop using coronary artery calcium scores to assess coronary artery disease?” ask Gaurav Gulsin, MD, and Alastair James Moss, MD, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial.

The study highlights the complexity of interpreting CAC scores in patients who have implemented recommendations for physical activity or started statin therapy, they note.

“While proponents would argue that it is an effective tool to screen for subclinical atherosclerosis in asymptomatic individuals, clinicians should be cautious regarding the overuse of this test in otherwise healthy individuals. The coronary artery calcium paradox should not result in paradoxical care for our patients,” Dr. Gulsin and Dr. Moss conclude.

Dr. Sung, Dr. Hong, and the other study authors report no relevant financial relationships. The British Heart Foundation provides funding support for Dr. Gulsin and Dr. Moss.

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

Physical activity, long recommended by health experts to reduce risk for obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, hypercholesterolemia, and other cardiovascular disease risk factors, is also associated with increases in the amount of calcium deposited in the coronary arteries, new observational data suggest.

In a prospective cohort study of Korean men and women 18 years and older, participants who were the most physically active had the fastest progression of their coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores at 5 years, compared with those who were the least physically active.

“People who exercise may have an increase in their coronary calcium levels, but this is not necessarily bad news. This may mean that atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary arteries are becoming more stable and less dangerous, but we need additional research to understand these changes,” Eliseo Guallar, MD, PhD, professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview.

This paradoxical effect notwithstanding, doctors should continue to advise their patients to follow the physical activity guidelines for Americans that were published in 2018, Dr. Guallar said.

“Physical activity is a key component of a healthy lifestyle. Our analysis can be useful, however, if someone starts exercising and sees that his or her coronary calcium score goes up,” he said.

The study is published online September 20 in Heart.

The degree of build-up of calcium deposits in the coronary arteries is used to determine future cardiovascular disease risk and to guide treatment to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke. A CAC score of at least 100 Agatston units indicates that treatment with statins is warranted, the researchers write.

In the current study, investigators — led by Ki-Chul Sung, MD, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and Yun Soo Hong, MD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore — explored the link between different degrees of physical activity and the progression of CAC scores in healthy adults.

“While physical activity improves a wide array of cardiovascular and metabolic biomarkers, endurance athletes were more likely to have a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score >300 Agatston units or coronary plaques compared with sedentary men with a similar risk profile. It is not clear if exercise may itself be associated with calcification of the arteries,” the authors write.

The researchers studied 25,485 participants (22,741 men and 2,744 women) who were part of the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study. All were free of cardiovascular disease at study entry and underwent comprehensive health screening exams at one of two major health centers in Seoul and Suwon, South Korea, between March 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017.

At each exam, participants filled out a questionnaire that included questions on medical and family history, smoking habits, alcohol intake, and education level.

Participants were also quizzed at baseline about their physical activity, using the Korean version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF).

On the basis of that, they were categorized into one of three categories: inactive; moderately active, defined as at least 3 days of vigorous-intensity activity for at least 20 min/day or at least 5 days of moderate-intensity activity or walking for at least 30 min/ day or at least 5 days of any combination of walking and moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities, attaining at least 600 MET-min/week; or health-enhancing physically active (HEPA), defined as at least 3 days of vigorous-intensity activity, attaining at least 1,500 MET-min/week or 7 days of any combination of walking or moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities, attaining at least 3000 MET-min/week.  

Of the study participants, 47% were classified as inactive, 38% as moderately active, and 15% as HEPA.

Those who were more physically active tended to be older and less likely to smoke than less physically active participants. They also had lower total cholesterol, more hypertension, and existing evidence of calcium deposits in their coronary arteries.

A graded association between physical activity level and the prevalence and progression of coronary artery calcification was seen, irrespective of CAC scores at the start of monitoring.

At baseline, the estimated adjusted average baseline CAC scores in inactive participants was 9.45 (95% CI, 8.76 - 10.14), in moderately active participants was 10.20 (95% CI, 9.40 - 11.00), and in HEPA participants was 12.04 (95% CI, 10.81 - 13.26).

Compared with the least active participants, the estimated adjusted 5-year average increases in CAC was 3.20 (95% CI, 0.72 - 5.69) in moderately active participants and 8.16 (95% CI, 4.80 - 11.53) in HEPA participants.

A higher level of physical activity was associated with faster progression of CAC scores, both in participants with CAC score of 0 at baseline and in those with prevalent CAC.

The authors note there are several limitations to consider when interpreting their findings. These include the absence of an objective assessment of physical activity, the inability to evaluate the association between physical activity and CAC levels with incident cardiovascular events because of a lack of data, and the lack of information on incident myocardial infarction, stroke, CAC density, or volume.

Physical activity might increase coronary atherosclerosis through mechanical stress and vessel wall injury of coronary arteries; physiologic responses during exercise, such as increased blood pressure; increased parathyroid hormone levels; and changes in coronary hemodynamics and inflammation. “In addition, other factors, such as diet, vitamins, and minerals, may change with physical activity,” the authors write.

“The second possibility is that physical activity may increase CAC scores without increasing cardiovascular disease risk,” they write.

“The cardiovascular benefits of physical activity are unquestionable,” the authors emphasize, adding that the national guidelines recommend at least 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity or 75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity.

“Patients and physicians, however, need to consider that engaging in physical activity may accelerate the progression of coronary calcium, possibly due to plaque healing, stabilization and calcification,” they conclude.

Dr. Guallar added: “We would like to link our research to clinical outcomes, so that we can really be sure that the increase in coronary calcium scores does not imply an increase in risk.”

“Do these findings mean that we should stop using coronary artery calcium scores to assess coronary artery disease?” ask Gaurav Gulsin, MD, and Alastair James Moss, MD, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial.

The study highlights the complexity of interpreting CAC scores in patients who have implemented recommendations for physical activity or started statin therapy, they note.

“While proponents would argue that it is an effective tool to screen for subclinical atherosclerosis in asymptomatic individuals, clinicians should be cautious regarding the overuse of this test in otherwise healthy individuals. The coronary artery calcium paradox should not result in paradoxical care for our patients,” Dr. Gulsin and Dr. Moss conclude.

Dr. Sung, Dr. Hong, and the other study authors report no relevant financial relationships. The British Heart Foundation provides funding support for Dr. Gulsin and Dr. Moss.

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

Physical activity, long recommended by health experts to reduce risk for obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, hypercholesterolemia, and other cardiovascular disease risk factors, is also associated with increases in the amount of calcium deposited in the coronary arteries, new observational data suggest.

In a prospective cohort study of Korean men and women 18 years and older, participants who were the most physically active had the fastest progression of their coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores at 5 years, compared with those who were the least physically active.

“People who exercise may have an increase in their coronary calcium levels, but this is not necessarily bad news. This may mean that atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary arteries are becoming more stable and less dangerous, but we need additional research to understand these changes,” Eliseo Guallar, MD, PhD, professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview.

This paradoxical effect notwithstanding, doctors should continue to advise their patients to follow the physical activity guidelines for Americans that were published in 2018, Dr. Guallar said.

“Physical activity is a key component of a healthy lifestyle. Our analysis can be useful, however, if someone starts exercising and sees that his or her coronary calcium score goes up,” he said.

The study is published online September 20 in Heart.

The degree of build-up of calcium deposits in the coronary arteries is used to determine future cardiovascular disease risk and to guide treatment to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke. A CAC score of at least 100 Agatston units indicates that treatment with statins is warranted, the researchers write.

In the current study, investigators — led by Ki-Chul Sung, MD, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and Yun Soo Hong, MD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore — explored the link between different degrees of physical activity and the progression of CAC scores in healthy adults.

“While physical activity improves a wide array of cardiovascular and metabolic biomarkers, endurance athletes were more likely to have a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score >300 Agatston units or coronary plaques compared with sedentary men with a similar risk profile. It is not clear if exercise may itself be associated with calcification of the arteries,” the authors write.

The researchers studied 25,485 participants (22,741 men and 2,744 women) who were part of the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study. All were free of cardiovascular disease at study entry and underwent comprehensive health screening exams at one of two major health centers in Seoul and Suwon, South Korea, between March 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017.

At each exam, participants filled out a questionnaire that included questions on medical and family history, smoking habits, alcohol intake, and education level.

Participants were also quizzed at baseline about their physical activity, using the Korean version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF).

On the basis of that, they were categorized into one of three categories: inactive; moderately active, defined as at least 3 days of vigorous-intensity activity for at least 20 min/day or at least 5 days of moderate-intensity activity or walking for at least 30 min/ day or at least 5 days of any combination of walking and moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities, attaining at least 600 MET-min/week; or health-enhancing physically active (HEPA), defined as at least 3 days of vigorous-intensity activity, attaining at least 1,500 MET-min/week or 7 days of any combination of walking or moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities, attaining at least 3000 MET-min/week.  

Of the study participants, 47% were classified as inactive, 38% as moderately active, and 15% as HEPA.

Those who were more physically active tended to be older and less likely to smoke than less physically active participants. They also had lower total cholesterol, more hypertension, and existing evidence of calcium deposits in their coronary arteries.

A graded association between physical activity level and the prevalence and progression of coronary artery calcification was seen, irrespective of CAC scores at the start of monitoring.

At baseline, the estimated adjusted average baseline CAC scores in inactive participants was 9.45 (95% CI, 8.76 - 10.14), in moderately active participants was 10.20 (95% CI, 9.40 - 11.00), and in HEPA participants was 12.04 (95% CI, 10.81 - 13.26).

Compared with the least active participants, the estimated adjusted 5-year average increases in CAC was 3.20 (95% CI, 0.72 - 5.69) in moderately active participants and 8.16 (95% CI, 4.80 - 11.53) in HEPA participants.

A higher level of physical activity was associated with faster progression of CAC scores, both in participants with CAC score of 0 at baseline and in those with prevalent CAC.

The authors note there are several limitations to consider when interpreting their findings. These include the absence of an objective assessment of physical activity, the inability to evaluate the association between physical activity and CAC levels with incident cardiovascular events because of a lack of data, and the lack of information on incident myocardial infarction, stroke, CAC density, or volume.

Physical activity might increase coronary atherosclerosis through mechanical stress and vessel wall injury of coronary arteries; physiologic responses during exercise, such as increased blood pressure; increased parathyroid hormone levels; and changes in coronary hemodynamics and inflammation. “In addition, other factors, such as diet, vitamins, and minerals, may change with physical activity,” the authors write.

“The second possibility is that physical activity may increase CAC scores without increasing cardiovascular disease risk,” they write.

“The cardiovascular benefits of physical activity are unquestionable,” the authors emphasize, adding that the national guidelines recommend at least 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity or 75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity.

“Patients and physicians, however, need to consider that engaging in physical activity may accelerate the progression of coronary calcium, possibly due to plaque healing, stabilization and calcification,” they conclude.

Dr. Guallar added: “We would like to link our research to clinical outcomes, so that we can really be sure that the increase in coronary calcium scores does not imply an increase in risk.”

“Do these findings mean that we should stop using coronary artery calcium scores to assess coronary artery disease?” ask Gaurav Gulsin, MD, and Alastair James Moss, MD, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial.

The study highlights the complexity of interpreting CAC scores in patients who have implemented recommendations for physical activity or started statin therapy, they note.

“While proponents would argue that it is an effective tool to screen for subclinical atherosclerosis in asymptomatic individuals, clinicians should be cautious regarding the overuse of this test in otherwise healthy individuals. The coronary artery calcium paradox should not result in paradoxical care for our patients,” Dr. Gulsin and Dr. Moss conclude.

Dr. Sung, Dr. Hong, and the other study authors report no relevant financial relationships. The British Heart Foundation provides funding support for Dr. Gulsin and Dr. Moss.

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

A 4-month, structured diet and exercise intervention lowered blood pressure in adults with resistant blood pressure, according to results from a randomized, clinical trial. The program also led to improvements in baroreflex sensitivity, heart rate variability, and flow-mediated dilation, compared with individuals who received only a single education session.

The intervention included instruction from a nutritionist on how to follow the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, as well as restricting calories and sodium to less than 2,300 mg/day. It included weekly, 45-minute group counseling sessions, run by a clinical psychiatrist, focusing on eating behaviors. The exercise component included 30- to 45-minute sessions at 70%-85% of initial heart rate reserve, carried out three times per week at a cardiac rehabilitation facility.

“While some individuals can make the lifestyle changes on their own, a structured program of supervised exercise and dietary modification conducted by a multidisciplinary team of physicians, psychologists, nutritionists, and physical therapists/exercise physiologists found in cardiac rehabilitation programs throughout the country is likely to be more effective. There are many cardiac rehabilitation programs throughout the country that are accessible to most patients,” said lead author James Blumenthal, PhD, the J.P. Gibbons Professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The study, called Treating Resistant Hypertension Using Lifestyle Modification to Promote Health (TRIUMPH), was published in Circulation. It is one of few that have examined lifestyle interventions in resistant hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mm Hg after adherence to three or more optimally-dosed antihypertensive medications of three different classes, including one diuretic.

“This is a nice study [that] emphasizes what we often forget: Lifestyle factors, especially salt intake, are important drivers of resistant hypertension. Our own studies have shown that this is predominantly a salt retaining state, and one would expect dietary salt restriction to be particularly effective in this group of patients and that is what this study showed,” said Bryan Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Williams is chair of medicine at University College London.

The results should also be reassuring to some who worried that exercise might lead to worsened blood pressure. “This study showed that in patients with resistant hypertension, though not out of control blood pressures, exercise was not only safe, but effective in lowering their blood pressure,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment. He is executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The new research isn’t unique. In August, researchers in Portugal and Brazil showed that a 12-week exercise-only intervention reduced 24-hour and daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The two studies communicate the same message. “Lifestyle changes can work for resistant hypertension. So, two independent, modest-sized studies with essentially the same, positive, actionable conclusion,” said Dr. Bhatt, adding that the next step should be a larger, multicenter trial.

In the new study, 90 patients were assigned to the diet and exercise intervention and 50 to the control group. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 48% were women. Participants attended 94% of DASH diet classes and 89% of exercise sessions, and both groups had excellent adherence to medications.

The treatment group had a greater reduction in clinic systolic BP (–12.5 versus –7.1 mm Hg; P = .005) and diastolic BP (–5.9 versus –3.7 mm Hg; P = .034), as well as 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (–7.0 versus –0.3 mm Hg; P = .001). The treatment group also had more improvement in resting baroreflex sensitivity (2.3 versus –1.1 ms/mm Hg; P = .003), high-frequency heart rate variability (0.4 versus –0.2 ln ms²; P = .025, and flow-mediated dilation (0.3% versus –1.4%, P = .022). The two groups had similar outcomes with respect to pulse wave velocity and left ventricular mass.

“Results of the TRIUMPH study suggest that policymakers should consider resistant hypertension as a new indication for cardiac rehabilitation with appropriate coverage by governmental agencies and private insurers,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

“This is an important new, evidence-based intervention for resistant hypertension. It is safe and relatively inexpensive. It should now be something physicians routinely offer these patients. Hopefully in the future, insurers will cover cardiac rehabilitation for patients with resistant hypertension,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study also pointed towards an effective approach for patients who may be unable to sustain lifestyle changes. “Of course, not every patient will be able to maintain a healthy diet and an exercise program on their own, thus a cardiac rehabilitation program can be an excellent way to increase the likelihood of successful lifestyle modification,” Dr. Bhatt said.

TRIUMPH was sponsored by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. None of the authors had disclosures to report. Dr. Bhatt disclosed having financial relationships with more than 40 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A 4-month, structured diet and exercise intervention lowered blood pressure in adults with resistant blood pressure, according to results from a randomized, clinical trial. The program also led to improvements in baroreflex sensitivity, heart rate variability, and flow-mediated dilation, compared with individuals who received only a single education session.

The intervention included instruction from a nutritionist on how to follow the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, as well as restricting calories and sodium to less than 2,300 mg/day. It included weekly, 45-minute group counseling sessions, run by a clinical psychiatrist, focusing on eating behaviors. The exercise component included 30- to 45-minute sessions at 70%-85% of initial heart rate reserve, carried out three times per week at a cardiac rehabilitation facility.

“While some individuals can make the lifestyle changes on their own, a structured program of supervised exercise and dietary modification conducted by a multidisciplinary team of physicians, psychologists, nutritionists, and physical therapists/exercise physiologists found in cardiac rehabilitation programs throughout the country is likely to be more effective. There are many cardiac rehabilitation programs throughout the country that are accessible to most patients,” said lead author James Blumenthal, PhD, the J.P. Gibbons Professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The study, called Treating Resistant Hypertension Using Lifestyle Modification to Promote Health (TRIUMPH), was published in Circulation. It is one of few that have examined lifestyle interventions in resistant hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mm Hg after adherence to three or more optimally-dosed antihypertensive medications of three different classes, including one diuretic.

“This is a nice study [that] emphasizes what we often forget: Lifestyle factors, especially salt intake, are important drivers of resistant hypertension. Our own studies have shown that this is predominantly a salt retaining state, and one would expect dietary salt restriction to be particularly effective in this group of patients and that is what this study showed,” said Bryan Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Williams is chair of medicine at University College London.

The results should also be reassuring to some who worried that exercise might lead to worsened blood pressure. “This study showed that in patients with resistant hypertension, though not out of control blood pressures, exercise was not only safe, but effective in lowering their blood pressure,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment. He is executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The new research isn’t unique. In August, researchers in Portugal and Brazil showed that a 12-week exercise-only intervention reduced 24-hour and daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The two studies communicate the same message. “Lifestyle changes can work for resistant hypertension. So, two independent, modest-sized studies with essentially the same, positive, actionable conclusion,” said Dr. Bhatt, adding that the next step should be a larger, multicenter trial.

In the new study, 90 patients were assigned to the diet and exercise intervention and 50 to the control group. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 48% were women. Participants attended 94% of DASH diet classes and 89% of exercise sessions, and both groups had excellent adherence to medications.

The treatment group had a greater reduction in clinic systolic BP (–12.5 versus –7.1 mm Hg; P = .005) and diastolic BP (–5.9 versus –3.7 mm Hg; P = .034), as well as 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (–7.0 versus –0.3 mm Hg; P = .001). The treatment group also had more improvement in resting baroreflex sensitivity (2.3 versus –1.1 ms/mm Hg; P = .003), high-frequency heart rate variability (0.4 versus –0.2 ln ms²; P = .025, and flow-mediated dilation (0.3% versus –1.4%, P = .022). The two groups had similar outcomes with respect to pulse wave velocity and left ventricular mass.

“Results of the TRIUMPH study suggest that policymakers should consider resistant hypertension as a new indication for cardiac rehabilitation with appropriate coverage by governmental agencies and private insurers,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

“This is an important new, evidence-based intervention for resistant hypertension. It is safe and relatively inexpensive. It should now be something physicians routinely offer these patients. Hopefully in the future, insurers will cover cardiac rehabilitation for patients with resistant hypertension,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study also pointed towards an effective approach for patients who may be unable to sustain lifestyle changes. “Of course, not every patient will be able to maintain a healthy diet and an exercise program on their own, thus a cardiac rehabilitation program can be an excellent way to increase the likelihood of successful lifestyle modification,” Dr. Bhatt said.

TRIUMPH was sponsored by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. None of the authors had disclosures to report. Dr. Bhatt disclosed having financial relationships with more than 40 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A 4-month, structured diet and exercise intervention lowered blood pressure in adults with resistant blood pressure, according to results from a randomized, clinical trial. The program also led to improvements in baroreflex sensitivity, heart rate variability, and flow-mediated dilation, compared with individuals who received only a single education session.

The intervention included instruction from a nutritionist on how to follow the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, as well as restricting calories and sodium to less than 2,300 mg/day. It included weekly, 45-minute group counseling sessions, run by a clinical psychiatrist, focusing on eating behaviors. The exercise component included 30- to 45-minute sessions at 70%-85% of initial heart rate reserve, carried out three times per week at a cardiac rehabilitation facility.

“While some individuals can make the lifestyle changes on their own, a structured program of supervised exercise and dietary modification conducted by a multidisciplinary team of physicians, psychologists, nutritionists, and physical therapists/exercise physiologists found in cardiac rehabilitation programs throughout the country is likely to be more effective. There are many cardiac rehabilitation programs throughout the country that are accessible to most patients,” said lead author James Blumenthal, PhD, the J.P. Gibbons Professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The study, called Treating Resistant Hypertension Using Lifestyle Modification to Promote Health (TRIUMPH), was published in Circulation. It is one of few that have examined lifestyle interventions in resistant hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mm Hg after adherence to three or more optimally-dosed antihypertensive medications of three different classes, including one diuretic.

“This is a nice study [that] emphasizes what we often forget: Lifestyle factors, especially salt intake, are important drivers of resistant hypertension. Our own studies have shown that this is predominantly a salt retaining state, and one would expect dietary salt restriction to be particularly effective in this group of patients and that is what this study showed,” said Bryan Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Williams is chair of medicine at University College London.

The results should also be reassuring to some who worried that exercise might lead to worsened blood pressure. “This study showed that in patients with resistant hypertension, though not out of control blood pressures, exercise was not only safe, but effective in lowering their blood pressure,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment. He is executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The new research isn’t unique. In August, researchers in Portugal and Brazil showed that a 12-week exercise-only intervention reduced 24-hour and daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The two studies communicate the same message. “Lifestyle changes can work for resistant hypertension. So, two independent, modest-sized studies with essentially the same, positive, actionable conclusion,” said Dr. Bhatt, adding that the next step should be a larger, multicenter trial.

In the new study, 90 patients were assigned to the diet and exercise intervention and 50 to the control group. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 48% were women. Participants attended 94% of DASH diet classes and 89% of exercise sessions, and both groups had excellent adherence to medications.

The treatment group had a greater reduction in clinic systolic BP (–12.5 versus –7.1 mm Hg; P = .005) and diastolic BP (–5.9 versus –3.7 mm Hg; P = .034), as well as 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (–7.0 versus –0.3 mm Hg; P = .001). The treatment group also had more improvement in resting baroreflex sensitivity (2.3 versus –1.1 ms/mm Hg; P = .003), high-frequency heart rate variability (0.4 versus –0.2 ln ms²; P = .025, and flow-mediated dilation (0.3% versus –1.4%, P = .022). The two groups had similar outcomes with respect to pulse wave velocity and left ventricular mass.

“Results of the TRIUMPH study suggest that policymakers should consider resistant hypertension as a new indication for cardiac rehabilitation with appropriate coverage by governmental agencies and private insurers,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

“This is an important new, evidence-based intervention for resistant hypertension. It is safe and relatively inexpensive. It should now be something physicians routinely offer these patients. Hopefully in the future, insurers will cover cardiac rehabilitation for patients with resistant hypertension,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study also pointed towards an effective approach for patients who may be unable to sustain lifestyle changes. “Of course, not every patient will be able to maintain a healthy diet and an exercise program on their own, thus a cardiac rehabilitation program can be an excellent way to increase the likelihood of successful lifestyle modification,” Dr. Bhatt said.

TRIUMPH was sponsored by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. None of the authors had disclosures to report. Dr. Bhatt disclosed having financial relationships with more than 40 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2021 will delve into individualized approaches in diabetes management, particularly with regard to tailoring drug therapy for type 2 diabetes and management of type 1 diabetes.  

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The virtual meeting, taking place Sept. 28 to Oct. 1 in Central European Summer Time, will feature results from TriMASTER (a three-way cross-over trial of precision medicine strategy of second-/third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes), new subgroup analyses from the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness) study, the final version of a consensus statement on type 1 diabetes management, and new data on the dual incretin agonist tirzepatide, as well as much more.

“I’m a strong believer in personalization. I don’t think the big blockbuster [drugs] will serve the entire community with diabetes. Even in type 1 diabetes, there’s evidence of heterogeneity. ... We need a better way to identify individual needs. I think that’s where we’re going. ... It’s one of the themes of the conference,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of Pisa (Italy), told this news organization.

He noted that EASD and the American Diabetes Association have recently teamed up with other organizations to form the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative

As would be expected, the meeting will also feature numerous presentations on the COVID-19 pandemic, including studies looking at how people with COVID-19 and diabetes have fared; how the pandemic has affected diabetes care; and the still unclear impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells and whether, in some instances, it triggers new-onset diabetes.  
 

New data from previously reported trials

There will be new data from several previously reported trials focusing on specific groups of patients with type 2 diabetes. One is the EMPEROR-Preserved study of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in individuals with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Initially presented in August 2021 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the new data will focus on patient subpopulations, efficacy endpoints, and safety in patients with and without diabetes. A companion study, EMPEROR-Reduced, in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, was presented at the ESC Congress in August 2020.

New findings will also be presented from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease. The study was stopped early in March 2020 because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug in preventing CKD. Now, the data will be analyzed in terms of metabolic, nephrology, and cardiology parameters.

And from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia), new data will also focus on a variety of subgroups of individuals with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

“Our goal is to cover most aspects of what’s happening in the type 2 diabetes field,” EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Rydén, who chairs the meeting’s scientific program committee, added: “We can only focus on so much every year but we try to be active and changing from year to year. I’m convinced that a clinician or translational researcher will definitely have a number of very interesting symposia to follow and learn new things. If you follow all of these things, you will know a lot about what’s cooking in the diabetes world.”
 

Consensus on type 1 diabetes management: Special considerations

Both Dr. Del Prato and Dr. Rydén cited presentation of the new type 1 diabetes ADA/EASD consensus report as among the most clinically important of the conference. Initially presented in draft form at the ADA Scientific Sessions in June 2021, the document aims to move away from routinely applying principles derived from studies of patients with type 2 diabetes to those with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease with unique characteristics.

The final version of the document is expected to include information on goals of therapy, glycemic targets, prevention and management of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, psychosocial care, and special populations, among other issues. It is also expected to include a section dedicated to adjunctive treatments beyond insulin, including metformin, pramlintide, glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for certain patients.  

Dr. Del Prato noted, “From a clinical point of view, this is quite an important step that two major organizations came together recommending some strategies for treating type 2 diabetes ... It really deals with a big problem and tries to provide the tools for improving homogenization of the treatment of type 1 diabetes across the different health systems.”

And Dr. Rydén commented: “I think it’s really important to have, since there’s been so much focus on type 2 diabetes for the last few years, and to have the ADA and EASD getting together and actually write this.”

But Dr. Rydén also pointed out that outcomes data are much more conclusive for drugs in type 2 diabetes to inform international guidelines, whereas “this is much more difficult to demonstrate with type 1 diabetes. With a new pump or [continuous glucose monitor (CGM)] you might show a reduction in [hemoglobin] A1c of X percent or X mmol/mol or hypoglycemia events, but it’s much harder to show improvements in hard outcomes like deaths and cardiovascular events. I’m really looking forward to having this presented.”
 

Diabetes in 2021: It’s personal

Several meeting sessions will specifically address precision medicine approaches, including the TriMASTER study, which aims to identify subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who respond well or poorly to particular drugs based on clinical characteristics so that treatments can be better targeted to individuals. In total, 600 patients with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control with metformin were randomized to a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or thiazolidinedione (TZD).

According to Dr. Rydén, “The TriMASTER final results will be interesting. TZDs still have a place. ... You can’t give them to people with heart failure, but I think like a carpenter you have to have many tools in your toolbox. And I still think that there are some individuals who respond well to pioglitazone. [The study findings] could be influential, depending on the results.”

An EASD/ADA symposium entitled “Optimizing diabetes diagnosis, prevention, and care: Is precision medicine the answer?” will offer three distinct perspectives, with one speaker arguing it’s the future of diabetes medicine, another that it isn’t, and a third explaining that “the devil is in the details.”

The Diabetologia symposium will focus on a related concept: The use of artificial intelligence in diabetes research and care, with particular application to glucose control, neuropathy, and wound healing.

And during the 36th Camillo Golgi Lecture, kidney disease expert H.J. Lambers Heerspink, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), will speak about personalizing treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes, arguing that “the mean is meaningless.”
 

Next-generation incretin therapy: Is weight loss the treatment?

New data will continue the buzz from the ADA meeting surrounding tirzepatide, the dual GLP-1 receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agent.

A session will add new data from SURPASS-3 CGM, looking at the effect of the drug captured by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes; SURPASS-3 MRI, examining the effect of the drug on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue; and SURPASS-4, investigating efficacy and safety of tirzepatide once-weekly versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk.

The drug is notable for its dramatic reductions in both A1c and weight, although questions remain about the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects and effects on long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Dr. Rydén commented: “Given its effects on A1c and body weight, we would expect a positive result, but one never knows. It’s at least safe, that’s for sure. I think this mode of action is extremely interesting.”

Dr. Del Prato noted that tirzepatide could also “open up a new area of intervention for type 1 diabetes. The initial data were promising. ... It’s worth keeping an eye on.”

A related symposium will address the future of incretin-based treatments overall, while the EASD-Lancet symposium will examine whether the treatment of obesity is the «future» of diabetes treatment.
 

COVID-19, hypoglycemia, bone, and much more

As always, there’s much more on the agenda. Other noteworthy sessions include those addressing hypoglycemia management; a joint EASD/European Society of Endocrinology session on diabetes and bone; a debate about whether women with diabetes are at higher cardiovascular risk than men; and in-hospital management of hyperglycemia. 

A new feature of the meeting will be a daily roundup/wrap-up, where members of the program committee and speakers will summarize the day’s highlights. And another feature, “EASD e-Learning,” has been expanded to include more clinical topics around insulin use, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, and neuropathy. 

Overall, Dr. Del Prato said, “it’s a very populated program, with more than 700 presenters, 162 invited symposia speakers, and 53 chairs. It’s covering widely different areas from basic to clinical research. ... It’s a lot of stuff going on.”

Both Dr. Rydén and Dr. Del Prato have disclosures with multiple manufacturers of diabetes-related products.

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

The annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2021 will delve into individualized approaches in diabetes management, particularly with regard to tailoring drug therapy for type 2 diabetes and management of type 1 diabetes.  

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The virtual meeting, taking place Sept. 28 to Oct. 1 in Central European Summer Time, will feature results from TriMASTER (a three-way cross-over trial of precision medicine strategy of second-/third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes), new subgroup analyses from the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness) study, the final version of a consensus statement on type 1 diabetes management, and new data on the dual incretin agonist tirzepatide, as well as much more.

“I’m a strong believer in personalization. I don’t think the big blockbuster [drugs] will serve the entire community with diabetes. Even in type 1 diabetes, there’s evidence of heterogeneity. ... We need a better way to identify individual needs. I think that’s where we’re going. ... It’s one of the themes of the conference,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of Pisa (Italy), told this news organization.

He noted that EASD and the American Diabetes Association have recently teamed up with other organizations to form the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative

As would be expected, the meeting will also feature numerous presentations on the COVID-19 pandemic, including studies looking at how people with COVID-19 and diabetes have fared; how the pandemic has affected diabetes care; and the still unclear impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells and whether, in some instances, it triggers new-onset diabetes.  
 

New data from previously reported trials

There will be new data from several previously reported trials focusing on specific groups of patients with type 2 diabetes. One is the EMPEROR-Preserved study of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in individuals with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Initially presented in August 2021 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the new data will focus on patient subpopulations, efficacy endpoints, and safety in patients with and without diabetes. A companion study, EMPEROR-Reduced, in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, was presented at the ESC Congress in August 2020.

New findings will also be presented from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease. The study was stopped early in March 2020 because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug in preventing CKD. Now, the data will be analyzed in terms of metabolic, nephrology, and cardiology parameters.

And from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia), new data will also focus on a variety of subgroups of individuals with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

“Our goal is to cover most aspects of what’s happening in the type 2 diabetes field,” EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Rydén, who chairs the meeting’s scientific program committee, added: “We can only focus on so much every year but we try to be active and changing from year to year. I’m convinced that a clinician or translational researcher will definitely have a number of very interesting symposia to follow and learn new things. If you follow all of these things, you will know a lot about what’s cooking in the diabetes world.”
 

Consensus on type 1 diabetes management: Special considerations

Both Dr. Del Prato and Dr. Rydén cited presentation of the new type 1 diabetes ADA/EASD consensus report as among the most clinically important of the conference. Initially presented in draft form at the ADA Scientific Sessions in June 2021, the document aims to move away from routinely applying principles derived from studies of patients with type 2 diabetes to those with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease with unique characteristics.

The final version of the document is expected to include information on goals of therapy, glycemic targets, prevention and management of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, psychosocial care, and special populations, among other issues. It is also expected to include a section dedicated to adjunctive treatments beyond insulin, including metformin, pramlintide, glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for certain patients.  

Dr. Del Prato noted, “From a clinical point of view, this is quite an important step that two major organizations came together recommending some strategies for treating type 2 diabetes ... It really deals with a big problem and tries to provide the tools for improving homogenization of the treatment of type 1 diabetes across the different health systems.”

And Dr. Rydén commented: “I think it’s really important to have, since there’s been so much focus on type 2 diabetes for the last few years, and to have the ADA and EASD getting together and actually write this.”

But Dr. Rydén also pointed out that outcomes data are much more conclusive for drugs in type 2 diabetes to inform international guidelines, whereas “this is much more difficult to demonstrate with type 1 diabetes. With a new pump or [continuous glucose monitor (CGM)] you might show a reduction in [hemoglobin] A1c of X percent or X mmol/mol or hypoglycemia events, but it’s much harder to show improvements in hard outcomes like deaths and cardiovascular events. I’m really looking forward to having this presented.”
 

Diabetes in 2021: It’s personal

Several meeting sessions will specifically address precision medicine approaches, including the TriMASTER study, which aims to identify subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who respond well or poorly to particular drugs based on clinical characteristics so that treatments can be better targeted to individuals. In total, 600 patients with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control with metformin were randomized to a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or thiazolidinedione (TZD).

According to Dr. Rydén, “The TriMASTER final results will be interesting. TZDs still have a place. ... You can’t give them to people with heart failure, but I think like a carpenter you have to have many tools in your toolbox. And I still think that there are some individuals who respond well to pioglitazone. [The study findings] could be influential, depending on the results.”

An EASD/ADA symposium entitled “Optimizing diabetes diagnosis, prevention, and care: Is precision medicine the answer?” will offer three distinct perspectives, with one speaker arguing it’s the future of diabetes medicine, another that it isn’t, and a third explaining that “the devil is in the details.”

The Diabetologia symposium will focus on a related concept: The use of artificial intelligence in diabetes research and care, with particular application to glucose control, neuropathy, and wound healing.

And during the 36th Camillo Golgi Lecture, kidney disease expert H.J. Lambers Heerspink, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), will speak about personalizing treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes, arguing that “the mean is meaningless.”
 

Next-generation incretin therapy: Is weight loss the treatment?

New data will continue the buzz from the ADA meeting surrounding tirzepatide, the dual GLP-1 receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agent.

A session will add new data from SURPASS-3 CGM, looking at the effect of the drug captured by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes; SURPASS-3 MRI, examining the effect of the drug on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue; and SURPASS-4, investigating efficacy and safety of tirzepatide once-weekly versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk.

The drug is notable for its dramatic reductions in both A1c and weight, although questions remain about the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects and effects on long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Dr. Rydén commented: “Given its effects on A1c and body weight, we would expect a positive result, but one never knows. It’s at least safe, that’s for sure. I think this mode of action is extremely interesting.”

Dr. Del Prato noted that tirzepatide could also “open up a new area of intervention for type 1 diabetes. The initial data were promising. ... It’s worth keeping an eye on.”

A related symposium will address the future of incretin-based treatments overall, while the EASD-Lancet symposium will examine whether the treatment of obesity is the «future» of diabetes treatment.
 

COVID-19, hypoglycemia, bone, and much more

As always, there’s much more on the agenda. Other noteworthy sessions include those addressing hypoglycemia management; a joint EASD/European Society of Endocrinology session on diabetes and bone; a debate about whether women with diabetes are at higher cardiovascular risk than men; and in-hospital management of hyperglycemia. 

A new feature of the meeting will be a daily roundup/wrap-up, where members of the program committee and speakers will summarize the day’s highlights. And another feature, “EASD e-Learning,” has been expanded to include more clinical topics around insulin use, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, and neuropathy. 

Overall, Dr. Del Prato said, “it’s a very populated program, with more than 700 presenters, 162 invited symposia speakers, and 53 chairs. It’s covering widely different areas from basic to clinical research. ... It’s a lot of stuff going on.”

Both Dr. Rydén and Dr. Del Prato have disclosures with multiple manufacturers of diabetes-related products.

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

The annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2021 will delve into individualized approaches in diabetes management, particularly with regard to tailoring drug therapy for type 2 diabetes and management of type 1 diabetes.  

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The virtual meeting, taking place Sept. 28 to Oct. 1 in Central European Summer Time, will feature results from TriMASTER (a three-way cross-over trial of precision medicine strategy of second-/third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes), new subgroup analyses from the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness) study, the final version of a consensus statement on type 1 diabetes management, and new data on the dual incretin agonist tirzepatide, as well as much more.

“I’m a strong believer in personalization. I don’t think the big blockbuster [drugs] will serve the entire community with diabetes. Even in type 1 diabetes, there’s evidence of heterogeneity. ... We need a better way to identify individual needs. I think that’s where we’re going. ... It’s one of the themes of the conference,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of Pisa (Italy), told this news organization.

He noted that EASD and the American Diabetes Association have recently teamed up with other organizations to form the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative

As would be expected, the meeting will also feature numerous presentations on the COVID-19 pandemic, including studies looking at how people with COVID-19 and diabetes have fared; how the pandemic has affected diabetes care; and the still unclear impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells and whether, in some instances, it triggers new-onset diabetes.  
 

New data from previously reported trials

There will be new data from several previously reported trials focusing on specific groups of patients with type 2 diabetes. One is the EMPEROR-Preserved study of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in individuals with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Initially presented in August 2021 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the new data will focus on patient subpopulations, efficacy endpoints, and safety in patients with and without diabetes. A companion study, EMPEROR-Reduced, in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, was presented at the ESC Congress in August 2020.

New findings will also be presented from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease. The study was stopped early in March 2020 because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug in preventing CKD. Now, the data will be analyzed in terms of metabolic, nephrology, and cardiology parameters.

And from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia), new data will also focus on a variety of subgroups of individuals with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

“Our goal is to cover most aspects of what’s happening in the type 2 diabetes field,” EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Rydén, who chairs the meeting’s scientific program committee, added: “We can only focus on so much every year but we try to be active and changing from year to year. I’m convinced that a clinician or translational researcher will definitely have a number of very interesting symposia to follow and learn new things. If you follow all of these things, you will know a lot about what’s cooking in the diabetes world.”
 

Consensus on type 1 diabetes management: Special considerations

Both Dr. Del Prato and Dr. Rydén cited presentation of the new type 1 diabetes ADA/EASD consensus report as among the most clinically important of the conference. Initially presented in draft form at the ADA Scientific Sessions in June 2021, the document aims to move away from routinely applying principles derived from studies of patients with type 2 diabetes to those with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease with unique characteristics.

The final version of the document is expected to include information on goals of therapy, glycemic targets, prevention and management of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, psychosocial care, and special populations, among other issues. It is also expected to include a section dedicated to adjunctive treatments beyond insulin, including metformin, pramlintide, glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for certain patients.  

Dr. Del Prato noted, “From a clinical point of view, this is quite an important step that two major organizations came together recommending some strategies for treating type 2 diabetes ... It really deals with a big problem and tries to provide the tools for improving homogenization of the treatment of type 1 diabetes across the different health systems.”

And Dr. Rydén commented: “I think it’s really important to have, since there’s been so much focus on type 2 diabetes for the last few years, and to have the ADA and EASD getting together and actually write this.”

But Dr. Rydén also pointed out that outcomes data are much more conclusive for drugs in type 2 diabetes to inform international guidelines, whereas “this is much more difficult to demonstrate with type 1 diabetes. With a new pump or [continuous glucose monitor (CGM)] you might show a reduction in [hemoglobin] A1c of X percent or X mmol/mol or hypoglycemia events, but it’s much harder to show improvements in hard outcomes like deaths and cardiovascular events. I’m really looking forward to having this presented.”
 

Diabetes in 2021: It’s personal

Several meeting sessions will specifically address precision medicine approaches, including the TriMASTER study, which aims to identify subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who respond well or poorly to particular drugs based on clinical characteristics so that treatments can be better targeted to individuals. In total, 600 patients with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control with metformin were randomized to a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or thiazolidinedione (TZD).

According to Dr. Rydén, “The TriMASTER final results will be interesting. TZDs still have a place. ... You can’t give them to people with heart failure, but I think like a carpenter you have to have many tools in your toolbox. And I still think that there are some individuals who respond well to pioglitazone. [The study findings] could be influential, depending on the results.”

An EASD/ADA symposium entitled “Optimizing diabetes diagnosis, prevention, and care: Is precision medicine the answer?” will offer three distinct perspectives, with one speaker arguing it’s the future of diabetes medicine, another that it isn’t, and a third explaining that “the devil is in the details.”

The Diabetologia symposium will focus on a related concept: The use of artificial intelligence in diabetes research and care, with particular application to glucose control, neuropathy, and wound healing.

And during the 36th Camillo Golgi Lecture, kidney disease expert H.J. Lambers Heerspink, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), will speak about personalizing treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes, arguing that “the mean is meaningless.”
 

Next-generation incretin therapy: Is weight loss the treatment?

New data will continue the buzz from the ADA meeting surrounding tirzepatide, the dual GLP-1 receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agent.

A session will add new data from SURPASS-3 CGM, looking at the effect of the drug captured by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes; SURPASS-3 MRI, examining the effect of the drug on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue; and SURPASS-4, investigating efficacy and safety of tirzepatide once-weekly versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk.

The drug is notable for its dramatic reductions in both A1c and weight, although questions remain about the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects and effects on long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Dr. Rydén commented: “Given its effects on A1c and body weight, we would expect a positive result, but one never knows. It’s at least safe, that’s for sure. I think this mode of action is extremely interesting.”

Dr. Del Prato noted that tirzepatide could also “open up a new area of intervention for type 1 diabetes. The initial data were promising. ... It’s worth keeping an eye on.”

A related symposium will address the future of incretin-based treatments overall, while the EASD-Lancet symposium will examine whether the treatment of obesity is the «future» of diabetes treatment.
 

COVID-19, hypoglycemia, bone, and much more

As always, there’s much more on the agenda. Other noteworthy sessions include those addressing hypoglycemia management; a joint EASD/European Society of Endocrinology session on diabetes and bone; a debate about whether women with diabetes are at higher cardiovascular risk than men; and in-hospital management of hyperglycemia. 

A new feature of the meeting will be a daily roundup/wrap-up, where members of the program committee and speakers will summarize the day’s highlights. And another feature, “EASD e-Learning,” has been expanded to include more clinical topics around insulin use, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, and neuropathy. 

Overall, Dr. Del Prato said, “it’s a very populated program, with more than 700 presenters, 162 invited symposia speakers, and 53 chairs. It’s covering widely different areas from basic to clinical research. ... It’s a lot of stuff going on.”

Both Dr. Rydén and Dr. Del Prato have disclosures with multiple manufacturers of diabetes-related products.

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