Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

It’s back to school time, and some may be wondering what the current availability of vaccines may mean and the effects of the ever-changing COVID-19 guidelines on their children’s education and day-to-day experiences as students this year.

Unlike last school year, there are now vaccines available for all over the age of 6 months, and home rapid antigen tests are more readily available. Additionally, many have now been exposed either by infection or vaccination to the virus.

The CDC has removed the recommendations for maintaining cohorts in the K-12 population. This changing landscape along with differing levels of personal risk make it challenging to counsel families about what to expect in terms of COVID this year.

The best defense that we currently have against COVID is the vaccine. Although it seems that many are susceptible to the virus despite the vaccine, those who have been vaccinated are less susceptible to serious disease, including young children.

As older children may be heading to college, it is important

to encourage them to isolate when they have symptoms, even when they test negative for COVID as we would all like to avoid being sick in general.

Additionally, they should pay attention to the COVID risk level in their area and wear masks, particularly when indoors, as the levels increase. College students should have a plan for where they can isolate when not feeling well. If anyone does test positive for COVID, they should follow the most recent quarantine guidelines, including wearing a well fitted mask when they do begin returning to activities.
 

Monkeypox

We now have a new health concern for this school year.

Monkeypox has come onto the scene with information changing as rapidly as information previously did for COVID. With this virus, we must particularly counsel those heading away to college to be careful to limit their exposure to this disease.

Dormitories and other congregate settings are high-risk locations for the spread of monkeypox. Particularly, students headed to stay in dormitories should be counseled about avoiding:

• sexual activity with those with lesions consistent with monkeypox;
• sharing eating and drinking utensils; and
• sleeping in the same bed as or sharing bedding or towels with anyone with a diagnosis of or lesions consistent with monkeypox.

Additionally, as with prevention of all infections, it is important to frequently wash hands or use alcohol-based sanitizer before eating, and avoid touching the face after using the restroom.

Guidance for those eligible for vaccines against monkeypox seems to be quickly changing as well.

At the time of this article, CDC guidance recommends the vaccine against monkeypox for:

• those considered to be at high risk for it, including those identified by public health officials as a contact of someone with monkeypox;
• those who are aware that a sexual partner had a diagnosis of monkeypox within the past 2 weeks;
• those with multiple sex partners in the past 2 weeks in an area with known monkeypox; and
• those whose jobs may expose them to monkeypox.

Currently, the CDC recommends the vaccine JYNNEOS, a two-dose vaccine that reaches maximum protection after fourteen days. Ultimately, guidance is likely to continue to quickly change for both COVID-19 and Monkeypox throughout the fall. It is possible that new vaccinations will become available, and families and physicians alike will have many questions.

Primary care offices should ensure that someone is keeping up to date with the latest guidance to share with the office so that physicians may share accurate information with their patients.

Families should be counseled that we anticipate information about monkeypox, particularly related to vaccinations, to continue to change, as it has during all stages of the COVID pandemic.

As always, patients should be reminded to continue regular routine vaccinations, including the annual influenza vaccine.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

It’s back to school time, and some may be wondering what the current availability of vaccines may mean and the effects of the ever-changing COVID-19 guidelines on their children’s education and day-to-day experiences as students this year.

Unlike last school year, there are now vaccines available for all over the age of 6 months, and home rapid antigen tests are more readily available. Additionally, many have now been exposed either by infection or vaccination to the virus.

The CDC has removed the recommendations for maintaining cohorts in the K-12 population. This changing landscape along with differing levels of personal risk make it challenging to counsel families about what to expect in terms of COVID this year.

The best defense that we currently have against COVID is the vaccine. Although it seems that many are susceptible to the virus despite the vaccine, those who have been vaccinated are less susceptible to serious disease, including young children.

As older children may be heading to college, it is important

to encourage them to isolate when they have symptoms, even when they test negative for COVID as we would all like to avoid being sick in general.

Additionally, they should pay attention to the COVID risk level in their area and wear masks, particularly when indoors, as the levels increase. College students should have a plan for where they can isolate when not feeling well. If anyone does test positive for COVID, they should follow the most recent quarantine guidelines, including wearing a well fitted mask when they do begin returning to activities.
 

Monkeypox

We now have a new health concern for this school year.

Monkeypox has come onto the scene with information changing as rapidly as information previously did for COVID. With this virus, we must particularly counsel those heading away to college to be careful to limit their exposure to this disease.

Dormitories and other congregate settings are high-risk locations for the spread of monkeypox. Particularly, students headed to stay in dormitories should be counseled about avoiding:

• sexual activity with those with lesions consistent with monkeypox;
• sharing eating and drinking utensils; and
• sleeping in the same bed as or sharing bedding or towels with anyone with a diagnosis of or lesions consistent with monkeypox.

Additionally, as with prevention of all infections, it is important to frequently wash hands or use alcohol-based sanitizer before eating, and avoid touching the face after using the restroom.

Guidance for those eligible for vaccines against monkeypox seems to be quickly changing as well.

At the time of this article, CDC guidance recommends the vaccine against monkeypox for:

• those considered to be at high risk for it, including those identified by public health officials as a contact of someone with monkeypox;
• those who are aware that a sexual partner had a diagnosis of monkeypox within the past 2 weeks;
• those with multiple sex partners in the past 2 weeks in an area with known monkeypox; and
• those whose jobs may expose them to monkeypox.

Currently, the CDC recommends the vaccine JYNNEOS, a two-dose vaccine that reaches maximum protection after fourteen days. Ultimately, guidance is likely to continue to quickly change for both COVID-19 and Monkeypox throughout the fall. It is possible that new vaccinations will become available, and families and physicians alike will have many questions.

Primary care offices should ensure that someone is keeping up to date with the latest guidance to share with the office so that physicians may share accurate information with their patients.

Families should be counseled that we anticipate information about monkeypox, particularly related to vaccinations, to continue to change, as it has during all stages of the COVID pandemic.

As always, patients should be reminded to continue regular routine vaccinations, including the annual influenza vaccine.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

It’s back to school time, and some may be wondering what the current availability of vaccines may mean and the effects of the ever-changing COVID-19 guidelines on their children’s education and day-to-day experiences as students this year.

Unlike last school year, there are now vaccines available for all over the age of 6 months, and home rapid antigen tests are more readily available. Additionally, many have now been exposed either by infection or vaccination to the virus.

The CDC has removed the recommendations for maintaining cohorts in the K-12 population. This changing landscape along with differing levels of personal risk make it challenging to counsel families about what to expect in terms of COVID this year.

The best defense that we currently have against COVID is the vaccine. Although it seems that many are susceptible to the virus despite the vaccine, those who have been vaccinated are less susceptible to serious disease, including young children.

As older children may be heading to college, it is important

to encourage them to isolate when they have symptoms, even when they test negative for COVID as we would all like to avoid being sick in general.

Additionally, they should pay attention to the COVID risk level in their area and wear masks, particularly when indoors, as the levels increase. College students should have a plan for where they can isolate when not feeling well. If anyone does test positive for COVID, they should follow the most recent quarantine guidelines, including wearing a well fitted mask when they do begin returning to activities.
 

Monkeypox

We now have a new health concern for this school year.

Monkeypox has come onto the scene with information changing as rapidly as information previously did for COVID. With this virus, we must particularly counsel those heading away to college to be careful to limit their exposure to this disease.

Dormitories and other congregate settings are high-risk locations for the spread of monkeypox. Particularly, students headed to stay in dormitories should be counseled about avoiding:

• sexual activity with those with lesions consistent with monkeypox;
• sharing eating and drinking utensils; and
• sleeping in the same bed as or sharing bedding or towels with anyone with a diagnosis of or lesions consistent with monkeypox.

Additionally, as with prevention of all infections, it is important to frequently wash hands or use alcohol-based sanitizer before eating, and avoid touching the face after using the restroom.

Guidance for those eligible for vaccines against monkeypox seems to be quickly changing as well.

At the time of this article, CDC guidance recommends the vaccine against monkeypox for:

• those considered to be at high risk for it, including those identified by public health officials as a contact of someone with monkeypox;
• those who are aware that a sexual partner had a diagnosis of monkeypox within the past 2 weeks;
• those with multiple sex partners in the past 2 weeks in an area with known monkeypox; and
• those whose jobs may expose them to monkeypox.

Currently, the CDC recommends the vaccine JYNNEOS, a two-dose vaccine that reaches maximum protection after fourteen days. Ultimately, guidance is likely to continue to quickly change for both COVID-19 and Monkeypox throughout the fall. It is possible that new vaccinations will become available, and families and physicians alike will have many questions.

Primary care offices should ensure that someone is keeping up to date with the latest guidance to share with the office so that physicians may share accurate information with their patients.

Families should be counseled that we anticipate information about monkeypox, particularly related to vaccinations, to continue to change, as it has during all stages of the COVID pandemic.

As always, patients should be reminded to continue regular routine vaccinations, including the annual influenza vaccine.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

Despite significant disruptions to the health care system and employment early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the uninsured rate among cancer survivors remained stable in 2020, new research indicates.

In addition, the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and poor sleep habits, appeared to decline among cancer survivors as well as adults who had no history of cancer during this period.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic may have motivated people to adopt certain healthier behaviors,” Xuesong Han, PhD, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, said in a statement. In addition, policies implemented in response to the pandemic regarding insurance coverage, unemployment benefits, and financial assistance “may have contributed to the observed positive changes.”

Dr. Han and colleagues noted that “to the best of our knowledge, our study provides the first nationally representative estimates of the effects of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors in the United States.”

The study was published online in Cancer.

Given the considerable upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Han and colleagues wanted to explore how cancer survivors, in particular, were affected during the first year.

The analysis included 57,132 cancer survivors and 1,044,585 adults without cancer who were involved in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The researchers found that the unemployment rate in 2020 increased by 43% among cancer survivors and by 57% among adults without a cancer history compared with the previous 2 years.

However, the rate of uninsured cancer survivors aged 18-64 years remained relatively stable in 2020 at 8%, compared with 8.8% in 2017-2019.

Notably, the prevalence of insufficient sleep decreased among cancer survivors (43% to 39%), as did smoking (22% to 19%). Among adults without a history of cancer, there was a decline in insufficient sleep (37% to 34.3%) and smoking (16% to 15%). The prevalence of binge drinking decreased among adults with and those without a history of cancer as well.

Obesity rates, however, increased during the first year of the pandemic among cancer survivors (36.5% to 40%) as well as among those with no cancer history (30.8% to 32.7%). In addition, more adults without a cancer history reported an increase in mental distress in 2020 compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors suggest that some of the positive trends observed could be explained, in part, by increased enrollment in the Affordable Care Act and by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which increased the federal government’s share of Medicaid costs and prevented states from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic.

“These provisions likely compensated for the loss in employer-sponsored insurance,” the authors noted.

But, they added, “as policies related to the public health emergency expire, ongoing monitoring of long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivorship is warranted.”

Dr. Han has received a grant from AstraZeneca outside of the current study.

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

Despite significant disruptions to the health care system and employment early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the uninsured rate among cancer survivors remained stable in 2020, new research indicates.

In addition, the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and poor sleep habits, appeared to decline among cancer survivors as well as adults who had no history of cancer during this period.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic may have motivated people to adopt certain healthier behaviors,” Xuesong Han, PhD, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, said in a statement. In addition, policies implemented in response to the pandemic regarding insurance coverage, unemployment benefits, and financial assistance “may have contributed to the observed positive changes.”

Dr. Han and colleagues noted that “to the best of our knowledge, our study provides the first nationally representative estimates of the effects of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors in the United States.”

The study was published online in Cancer.

Given the considerable upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Han and colleagues wanted to explore how cancer survivors, in particular, were affected during the first year.

The analysis included 57,132 cancer survivors and 1,044,585 adults without cancer who were involved in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The researchers found that the unemployment rate in 2020 increased by 43% among cancer survivors and by 57% among adults without a cancer history compared with the previous 2 years.

However, the rate of uninsured cancer survivors aged 18-64 years remained relatively stable in 2020 at 8%, compared with 8.8% in 2017-2019.

Notably, the prevalence of insufficient sleep decreased among cancer survivors (43% to 39%), as did smoking (22% to 19%). Among adults without a history of cancer, there was a decline in insufficient sleep (37% to 34.3%) and smoking (16% to 15%). The prevalence of binge drinking decreased among adults with and those without a history of cancer as well.

Obesity rates, however, increased during the first year of the pandemic among cancer survivors (36.5% to 40%) as well as among those with no cancer history (30.8% to 32.7%). In addition, more adults without a cancer history reported an increase in mental distress in 2020 compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors suggest that some of the positive trends observed could be explained, in part, by increased enrollment in the Affordable Care Act and by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which increased the federal government’s share of Medicaid costs and prevented states from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic.

“These provisions likely compensated for the loss in employer-sponsored insurance,” the authors noted.

But, they added, “as policies related to the public health emergency expire, ongoing monitoring of long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivorship is warranted.”

Dr. Han has received a grant from AstraZeneca outside of the current study.

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

Despite significant disruptions to the health care system and employment early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the uninsured rate among cancer survivors remained stable in 2020, new research indicates.

In addition, the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and poor sleep habits, appeared to decline among cancer survivors as well as adults who had no history of cancer during this period.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic may have motivated people to adopt certain healthier behaviors,” Xuesong Han, PhD, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, said in a statement. In addition, policies implemented in response to the pandemic regarding insurance coverage, unemployment benefits, and financial assistance “may have contributed to the observed positive changes.”

Dr. Han and colleagues noted that “to the best of our knowledge, our study provides the first nationally representative estimates of the effects of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors in the United States.”

The study was published online in Cancer.

Given the considerable upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Han and colleagues wanted to explore how cancer survivors, in particular, were affected during the first year.

The analysis included 57,132 cancer survivors and 1,044,585 adults without cancer who were involved in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The researchers found that the unemployment rate in 2020 increased by 43% among cancer survivors and by 57% among adults without a cancer history compared with the previous 2 years.

However, the rate of uninsured cancer survivors aged 18-64 years remained relatively stable in 2020 at 8%, compared with 8.8% in 2017-2019.

Notably, the prevalence of insufficient sleep decreased among cancer survivors (43% to 39%), as did smoking (22% to 19%). Among adults without a history of cancer, there was a decline in insufficient sleep (37% to 34.3%) and smoking (16% to 15%). The prevalence of binge drinking decreased among adults with and those without a history of cancer as well.

Obesity rates, however, increased during the first year of the pandemic among cancer survivors (36.5% to 40%) as well as among those with no cancer history (30.8% to 32.7%). In addition, more adults without a cancer history reported an increase in mental distress in 2020 compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors suggest that some of the positive trends observed could be explained, in part, by increased enrollment in the Affordable Care Act and by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which increased the federal government’s share of Medicaid costs and prevented states from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic.

“These provisions likely compensated for the loss in employer-sponsored insurance,” the authors noted.

But, they added, “as policies related to the public health emergency expire, ongoing monitoring of long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivorship is warranted.”

Dr. Han has received a grant from AstraZeneca outside of the current study.

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

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

Psilocybin paired with psychotherapy is associated with a robust and sustained decrease in drinking among adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), new research suggests.

Results from the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial of psilocybin for alcohol dependence showed that during the 8 months after first treatment dose, participants who received psilocybin had less than half as many heavy drinking days as their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, 7 months after the last dose of medication, twice as many psilocybin-treated patients as placebo-treated patients were abstinent.

The effects observed with psilocybin were “considerably larger” than those of currently approved treatments for AUD, senior investigator Michael Bogenschutz, MD, psychiatrist and director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, New York, said during an Aug. 24 press briefing.

If the findings hold up in future trials, psilocybin will be a “real breakthrough” in the treatment of the condition, Dr. Bogenschutz said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

83% reduction in drinking days

The study included 93 adults (mean age, 46 years) with alcohol dependence who consumed an average of seven drinks on the days they drank and had had at least four heavy drinking days during the month prior to treatment.

Of the participants, 48 were randomly assigned to receive two doses of psilocybin, and 45 were assigned to receive an antihistamine (diphenhydramine) placebo. Study medication was administered during 2 day-long sessions at week 4 and week 8.

The participants also received 12 psychotherapy sessions over a 12-week period. All were assessed at intervals from the beginning of the study until 32 weeks after the first medication session.

The primary outcome was percentage of days in which the patient drank heavily during the 32-week period following first medication dose. Heavy drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a day for a man and four or more drinks in a day for a woman.

The percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the placebo group, for a mean difference of 13.9% (P = .01).

“Compared to their baseline before the study, after receiving medication, the psilocybin group decreased their heavy drinking days by 83%, while the placebo group reduced their heavy drinking by 51%,” Dr. Bogenschutz reported.

During the last month of follow-up, which was 7 months after the final dose of study medication, 48% of the psilocybin group were entirely abstinent vs. 24% of the placebo group.

“It is remarkable that the effects of psilocybin treatment persisted for 7 months after people received the last dose of medication. This suggests that psilocybin is treating the underlying disorder of alcohol addiction rather than merely treating symptoms,” Dr. Bogenschutz noted.

Total alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol use were also significantly less in the psilocybin group.

‘Encouraged and hopeful’

Adverse events related to psilocybin were mostly mild, self-limiting, and consistent with other recent trials that evaluated the drug’s effects in various conditions.

However, the current investigators note that they implemented measures to ensure safety, including careful medical and psychiatric screening, therapy, and monitoring that was provided by well-trained therapists, including a licensed psychiatrist. In addition, medications were available to treat acute psychiatric reactions.

A cited limitation of the study was that blinding was not maintained because the average intensity of experience with psilocybin was high, whereas it was low with diphenhydramine.

This difference undermined the masking of treatment such that more than 90% of participants and therapists correctly guessed the treatment assignment.

Another limitation was that objective measures to validate self-reported drinking outcomes were available for only 54% of study participants.

Despite these limitations, the study builds on earlier work by the NYU team that showed that two doses of psilocybin taken over a period of 8 weeks significantly reduced alcohol use and cravings in patients with AUD.

“We’re very encouraged by these findings and hopeful about where they could lead. Personally, it’s been very meaningful and rewarding for me to do this work and inspiring to witness the remarkable recoveries that some of our participants have experienced,” Dr. Bogenschutz told briefing attendees.

Urgent need

The authors of an accompanying editorial note that novel medications for alcohol dependence are “sorely needed. Recent renewed interest in the potential of hallucinogens for treating psychiatric disorders, including AUD, represents a potential move in that direction.”

Henry Kranzler, MD, and Emily Hartwell, PhD, both with the Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, write that the new findings “underscore the potential of developing psilocybin as an addition to the alcohol treatment pharmacopeia.”

They question, however, the feasibility of using hallucinogens in routine clinical practice because intensive psychotherapy, such as that provided in this study, requires a significant investment of time and labor.

“Such concomitant therapy, if necessary to realize the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin for treating AUD, could limit its uptake by clinicians,” Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell write.

The study was funded by the Heffter Research Institute and by individual donations from Carey and Claudia Turnbull, Dr. Efrem Nulman, Rodrigo Niño, and Cody Swift. Dr. Bogenschutz reports having received research funds from and serving as a consultant to Mind Medicine, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, B. More, AJNA Labs, Beckley Psytech, Journey Colab, and Bright Minds Biosciences. Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psilocybin paired with psychotherapy is associated with a robust and sustained decrease in drinking among adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), new research suggests.

Results from the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial of psilocybin for alcohol dependence showed that during the 8 months after first treatment dose, participants who received psilocybin had less than half as many heavy drinking days as their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, 7 months after the last dose of medication, twice as many psilocybin-treated patients as placebo-treated patients were abstinent.

The effects observed with psilocybin were “considerably larger” than those of currently approved treatments for AUD, senior investigator Michael Bogenschutz, MD, psychiatrist and director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, New York, said during an Aug. 24 press briefing.

If the findings hold up in future trials, psilocybin will be a “real breakthrough” in the treatment of the condition, Dr. Bogenschutz said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

83% reduction in drinking days

The study included 93 adults (mean age, 46 years) with alcohol dependence who consumed an average of seven drinks on the days they drank and had had at least four heavy drinking days during the month prior to treatment.

Of the participants, 48 were randomly assigned to receive two doses of psilocybin, and 45 were assigned to receive an antihistamine (diphenhydramine) placebo. Study medication was administered during 2 day-long sessions at week 4 and week 8.

The participants also received 12 psychotherapy sessions over a 12-week period. All were assessed at intervals from the beginning of the study until 32 weeks after the first medication session.

The primary outcome was percentage of days in which the patient drank heavily during the 32-week period following first medication dose. Heavy drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a day for a man and four or more drinks in a day for a woman.

The percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the placebo group, for a mean difference of 13.9% (P = .01).

“Compared to their baseline before the study, after receiving medication, the psilocybin group decreased their heavy drinking days by 83%, while the placebo group reduced their heavy drinking by 51%,” Dr. Bogenschutz reported.

During the last month of follow-up, which was 7 months after the final dose of study medication, 48% of the psilocybin group were entirely abstinent vs. 24% of the placebo group.

“It is remarkable that the effects of psilocybin treatment persisted for 7 months after people received the last dose of medication. This suggests that psilocybin is treating the underlying disorder of alcohol addiction rather than merely treating symptoms,” Dr. Bogenschutz noted.

Total alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol use were also significantly less in the psilocybin group.

‘Encouraged and hopeful’

Adverse events related to psilocybin were mostly mild, self-limiting, and consistent with other recent trials that evaluated the drug’s effects in various conditions.

However, the current investigators note that they implemented measures to ensure safety, including careful medical and psychiatric screening, therapy, and monitoring that was provided by well-trained therapists, including a licensed psychiatrist. In addition, medications were available to treat acute psychiatric reactions.

A cited limitation of the study was that blinding was not maintained because the average intensity of experience with psilocybin was high, whereas it was low with diphenhydramine.

This difference undermined the masking of treatment such that more than 90% of participants and therapists correctly guessed the treatment assignment.

Another limitation was that objective measures to validate self-reported drinking outcomes were available for only 54% of study participants.

Despite these limitations, the study builds on earlier work by the NYU team that showed that two doses of psilocybin taken over a period of 8 weeks significantly reduced alcohol use and cravings in patients with AUD.

“We’re very encouraged by these findings and hopeful about where they could lead. Personally, it’s been very meaningful and rewarding for me to do this work and inspiring to witness the remarkable recoveries that some of our participants have experienced,” Dr. Bogenschutz told briefing attendees.

Urgent need

The authors of an accompanying editorial note that novel medications for alcohol dependence are “sorely needed. Recent renewed interest in the potential of hallucinogens for treating psychiatric disorders, including AUD, represents a potential move in that direction.”

Henry Kranzler, MD, and Emily Hartwell, PhD, both with the Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, write that the new findings “underscore the potential of developing psilocybin as an addition to the alcohol treatment pharmacopeia.”

They question, however, the feasibility of using hallucinogens in routine clinical practice because intensive psychotherapy, such as that provided in this study, requires a significant investment of time and labor.

“Such concomitant therapy, if necessary to realize the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin for treating AUD, could limit its uptake by clinicians,” Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell write.

The study was funded by the Heffter Research Institute and by individual donations from Carey and Claudia Turnbull, Dr. Efrem Nulman, Rodrigo Niño, and Cody Swift. Dr. Bogenschutz reports having received research funds from and serving as a consultant to Mind Medicine, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, B. More, AJNA Labs, Beckley Psytech, Journey Colab, and Bright Minds Biosciences. Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psilocybin paired with psychotherapy is associated with a robust and sustained decrease in drinking among adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), new research suggests.

Results from the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial of psilocybin for alcohol dependence showed that during the 8 months after first treatment dose, participants who received psilocybin had less than half as many heavy drinking days as their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, 7 months after the last dose of medication, twice as many psilocybin-treated patients as placebo-treated patients were abstinent.

The effects observed with psilocybin were “considerably larger” than those of currently approved treatments for AUD, senior investigator Michael Bogenschutz, MD, psychiatrist and director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, New York, said during an Aug. 24 press briefing.

If the findings hold up in future trials, psilocybin will be a “real breakthrough” in the treatment of the condition, Dr. Bogenschutz said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

83% reduction in drinking days

The study included 93 adults (mean age, 46 years) with alcohol dependence who consumed an average of seven drinks on the days they drank and had had at least four heavy drinking days during the month prior to treatment.

Of the participants, 48 were randomly assigned to receive two doses of psilocybin, and 45 were assigned to receive an antihistamine (diphenhydramine) placebo. Study medication was administered during 2 day-long sessions at week 4 and week 8.

The participants also received 12 psychotherapy sessions over a 12-week period. All were assessed at intervals from the beginning of the study until 32 weeks after the first medication session.

The primary outcome was percentage of days in which the patient drank heavily during the 32-week period following first medication dose. Heavy drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a day for a man and four or more drinks in a day for a woman.

The percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the placebo group, for a mean difference of 13.9% (P = .01).

“Compared to their baseline before the study, after receiving medication, the psilocybin group decreased their heavy drinking days by 83%, while the placebo group reduced their heavy drinking by 51%,” Dr. Bogenschutz reported.

During the last month of follow-up, which was 7 months after the final dose of study medication, 48% of the psilocybin group were entirely abstinent vs. 24% of the placebo group.

“It is remarkable that the effects of psilocybin treatment persisted for 7 months after people received the last dose of medication. This suggests that psilocybin is treating the underlying disorder of alcohol addiction rather than merely treating symptoms,” Dr. Bogenschutz noted.

Total alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol use were also significantly less in the psilocybin group.

‘Encouraged and hopeful’

Adverse events related to psilocybin were mostly mild, self-limiting, and consistent with other recent trials that evaluated the drug’s effects in various conditions.

However, the current investigators note that they implemented measures to ensure safety, including careful medical and psychiatric screening, therapy, and monitoring that was provided by well-trained therapists, including a licensed psychiatrist. In addition, medications were available to treat acute psychiatric reactions.

A cited limitation of the study was that blinding was not maintained because the average intensity of experience with psilocybin was high, whereas it was low with diphenhydramine.

This difference undermined the masking of treatment such that more than 90% of participants and therapists correctly guessed the treatment assignment.

Another limitation was that objective measures to validate self-reported drinking outcomes were available for only 54% of study participants.

Despite these limitations, the study builds on earlier work by the NYU team that showed that two doses of psilocybin taken over a period of 8 weeks significantly reduced alcohol use and cravings in patients with AUD.

“We’re very encouraged by these findings and hopeful about where they could lead. Personally, it’s been very meaningful and rewarding for me to do this work and inspiring to witness the remarkable recoveries that some of our participants have experienced,” Dr. Bogenschutz told briefing attendees.

Urgent need

The authors of an accompanying editorial note that novel medications for alcohol dependence are “sorely needed. Recent renewed interest in the potential of hallucinogens for treating psychiatric disorders, including AUD, represents a potential move in that direction.”

Henry Kranzler, MD, and Emily Hartwell, PhD, both with the Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, write that the new findings “underscore the potential of developing psilocybin as an addition to the alcohol treatment pharmacopeia.”

They question, however, the feasibility of using hallucinogens in routine clinical practice because intensive psychotherapy, such as that provided in this study, requires a significant investment of time and labor.

“Such concomitant therapy, if necessary to realize the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin for treating AUD, could limit its uptake by clinicians,” Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell write.

The study was funded by the Heffter Research Institute and by individual donations from Carey and Claudia Turnbull, Dr. Efrem Nulman, Rodrigo Niño, and Cody Swift. Dr. Bogenschutz reports having received research funds from and serving as a consultant to Mind Medicine, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, B. More, AJNA Labs, Beckley Psytech, Journey Colab, and Bright Minds Biosciences. Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

What is the real goal of weight loss? In health care, reducing excess body fat is known to improve many complications faced by patients with obesity. Even modest to moderate weight loss contributes to improvements in health. Normalizing body weight is not required.

While our culture promotes an ideal body size, in the health care setting, our attention must focus on achieving health improvement. We need to be more tolerant of variations in body size if patients are healthy. Of note, varying amounts of weight loss produce improvement in the different complications of obesity, so the amount of weight loss required for improving one condition differs from that required to improve another condition.

When we prescribe weight loss for health improvement, we are trying to reduce both the mechanical burden of fat and the excess ectopic and visceral body fat that is driving disease. The good news about the physiology of weight loss is that we do not need to attain a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or even 30 to have health improvement. The excess abnormal body fat is the first to go!

Losing weight causes a disproportional reduction in ectopic and visceral fat depots. With a 5% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 9%. With 16% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 30%. Clearing of liver fat is even more dramatic. With 16% weight loss, 65% of liver fat is cleared.

Because ectopic abnormal fat is cleared preferentially with weight loss, it affects different tissues with varying amounts of weight loss.
 

Weight loss and diabetes

A close relationship exists between weight loss and insulin sensitivity. With just 5% weight loss, insulin sensitivity in the liver and adipose tissue is greatly improved, but while muscle insulin sensitivity is improved at just 5% weight loss, it continues to improve with further weight loss. Indeed, weight loss has enormous benefits in improving glycemia in prediabetes and diabetes.

In patients with impaired glucose tolerance, weight loss of 10% can eliminate progression to type 2 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes who still have beta-cell reserve, 15% weight loss can produce diabetes remission – normoglycemia without diabetes medications.
 

Weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors

Even very small amounts of weight loss – 3% – can improve triglycerides and glycemia. It takes 5% weight loss to show benefits in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. For all of these, additional weight loss brings more improvement. Inflammatory markers are more difficult. It takes 10%-15% weight loss to improve most of these – for example, C-reactive protein.

Weight loss and other complications

It takes 10% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvements in symptoms in obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. For knee pain, the relationship to improvement is not based on achieving a percentage loss. Each pound of weight lost can result in a fourfold reduction in the load exerted on the knee per step during daily activities, but it is important to reduce weight before there is structural damage, because weight loss can’t repair damaged knee joints. Moderate weight loss (5%-10%) produces improvements in quality-of-life measures, in urinary stress incontinence symptoms, and in measures of sexual function. It probably takes 15% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvement in cardiovascular events.

Must heavier patients lose more weight?

To answer this question, it is important to think in terms of percent weight loss rather than pounds or kilograms. In large studies of lifestyle intervention, of course individuals with higher BMI lost more weight. But the percentage weight loss was the same across BMI categories: class 1 (BMI 30-35), class 2 (BMI 35-40), class 3 (BMI > 40). Furthermore, the improvement in risk factors was the same across BMI categories. Those with class 3 obesity had the same improvements as those with class 1. This provides further rationale for thinking about weight loss as a percentage from baseline weight rather than as simply a weight-loss goal in pounds.

Goal setting is an important part of any behavioral intervention

At the start of a weight-loss intervention, the health care provider should raise the issue of the goal and the time course for achieving it. Patients often have unrealistic expectations, wanting to achieve large amounts of weight loss rapidly. Unfortunately, popular culture has reinforced this idea with advertisements using “lose 10 pounds the first week” and promoting before-and-after pictures of weight-loss results. The job of the health care provider is to coach and guide the patient in terms of achievable weight loss that can bring health improvement safely. Managing patient expectations is critical to long-term success.

Think in terms of percentage weight loss, not pounds, and set goals at achievable time points

Help patients translate a percent weight-loss goal to a pounds goal at 3, 6, and 12 months. With the emergence of medications approved for chronic weight management with robust weight-loss efficacy, it now is possible to achieve a weight-loss goal of 10% or 15% with regularity, and some patients will be able to achieve 20% or 25% weight loss with newer medications.

We should help our patients set a goal by calculating a goal for certain time points. A good goal for 3 months would be 5% weight loss. For our 200-lb patient, we would translate that to 10 lb in 3 months. For 6 months, the goal should be 10% (20 lb for our 200-lb patient). The usual trajectory of weight loss with lifestyle intervention alone is for a “plateau” at 6 months, although with newer medications, weight loss will continue for more than a year. That 1-year goal might be 15% (30 lb for our 200-lb patient) or even more, based on the patient’s baseline weight and body composition.

Weight-loss calculators can be useful tools for patients and health care providers. They can be found online and include the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner and the Pennington Biomedical Weight Loss Predictor Calculator. These tools give patients a realistic expectation of how fast weight loss can occur and provide guidelines to measure success.
 

Can patients lose too much weight?

In this patient population, losing too much weight is not typically a concern. However, newer medications are achieving average weight losses of 17% and 22% at 62 weeks, as reported by this news organization. There is a wide variation in response to these newer agents which target appetite, and many patients are losing more than the average percentages.

Remembering that the goal of weight loss is the reduction of excess abnormal body fat, we want patients to preserve as much lean mass as possible. Weight-bearing exercise can help during the weight-loss phase, but large or rapid weight loss can be concerning, especially in older individuals. When the BMI drops below 25, we want to watch patients carefully. Measurement of body composition, including bone mineral density, with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) can help. This is a scenario where dose reduction of antiobesity medication can be indicated, and good clinical judgment is required to keep weight loss at healthy levels.
 

The future of weight loss

In the past, our strategy has been to promote as much weight loss as possible. With more effective medications, our strategy will have to change to a treat-to-target approach, such as we already use in hypertension and diabetes.

With the ability to produce powerful effects on appetite will come the need to not only target weight loss but to target preservation of lean mass and even to target different approaches for weight-loss maintenance. At present, we have no evidence that stopping medications results in anything other than weight regain. The study of different approaches to weight-loss maintenance will require our full attention.

Dr. Ryan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, consultant, or trustee for: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand.

Donna Ryan, MD, is Professor Emerita, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.

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

What is the real goal of weight loss? In health care, reducing excess body fat is known to improve many complications faced by patients with obesity. Even modest to moderate weight loss contributes to improvements in health. Normalizing body weight is not required.

While our culture promotes an ideal body size, in the health care setting, our attention must focus on achieving health improvement. We need to be more tolerant of variations in body size if patients are healthy. Of note, varying amounts of weight loss produce improvement in the different complications of obesity, so the amount of weight loss required for improving one condition differs from that required to improve another condition.

When we prescribe weight loss for health improvement, we are trying to reduce both the mechanical burden of fat and the excess ectopic and visceral body fat that is driving disease. The good news about the physiology of weight loss is that we do not need to attain a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or even 30 to have health improvement. The excess abnormal body fat is the first to go!

Losing weight causes a disproportional reduction in ectopic and visceral fat depots. With a 5% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 9%. With 16% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 30%. Clearing of liver fat is even more dramatic. With 16% weight loss, 65% of liver fat is cleared.

Because ectopic abnormal fat is cleared preferentially with weight loss, it affects different tissues with varying amounts of weight loss.
 

Weight loss and diabetes

A close relationship exists between weight loss and insulin sensitivity. With just 5% weight loss, insulin sensitivity in the liver and adipose tissue is greatly improved, but while muscle insulin sensitivity is improved at just 5% weight loss, it continues to improve with further weight loss. Indeed, weight loss has enormous benefits in improving glycemia in prediabetes and diabetes.

In patients with impaired glucose tolerance, weight loss of 10% can eliminate progression to type 2 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes who still have beta-cell reserve, 15% weight loss can produce diabetes remission – normoglycemia without diabetes medications.
 

Weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors

Even very small amounts of weight loss – 3% – can improve triglycerides and glycemia. It takes 5% weight loss to show benefits in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. For all of these, additional weight loss brings more improvement. Inflammatory markers are more difficult. It takes 10%-15% weight loss to improve most of these – for example, C-reactive protein.

Weight loss and other complications

It takes 10% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvements in symptoms in obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. For knee pain, the relationship to improvement is not based on achieving a percentage loss. Each pound of weight lost can result in a fourfold reduction in the load exerted on the knee per step during daily activities, but it is important to reduce weight before there is structural damage, because weight loss can’t repair damaged knee joints. Moderate weight loss (5%-10%) produces improvements in quality-of-life measures, in urinary stress incontinence symptoms, and in measures of sexual function. It probably takes 15% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvement in cardiovascular events.

Must heavier patients lose more weight?

To answer this question, it is important to think in terms of percent weight loss rather than pounds or kilograms. In large studies of lifestyle intervention, of course individuals with higher BMI lost more weight. But the percentage weight loss was the same across BMI categories: class 1 (BMI 30-35), class 2 (BMI 35-40), class 3 (BMI > 40). Furthermore, the improvement in risk factors was the same across BMI categories. Those with class 3 obesity had the same improvements as those with class 1. This provides further rationale for thinking about weight loss as a percentage from baseline weight rather than as simply a weight-loss goal in pounds.

Goal setting is an important part of any behavioral intervention

At the start of a weight-loss intervention, the health care provider should raise the issue of the goal and the time course for achieving it. Patients often have unrealistic expectations, wanting to achieve large amounts of weight loss rapidly. Unfortunately, popular culture has reinforced this idea with advertisements using “lose 10 pounds the first week” and promoting before-and-after pictures of weight-loss results. The job of the health care provider is to coach and guide the patient in terms of achievable weight loss that can bring health improvement safely. Managing patient expectations is critical to long-term success.

Think in terms of percentage weight loss, not pounds, and set goals at achievable time points

Help patients translate a percent weight-loss goal to a pounds goal at 3, 6, and 12 months. With the emergence of medications approved for chronic weight management with robust weight-loss efficacy, it now is possible to achieve a weight-loss goal of 10% or 15% with regularity, and some patients will be able to achieve 20% or 25% weight loss with newer medications.

We should help our patients set a goal by calculating a goal for certain time points. A good goal for 3 months would be 5% weight loss. For our 200-lb patient, we would translate that to 10 lb in 3 months. For 6 months, the goal should be 10% (20 lb for our 200-lb patient). The usual trajectory of weight loss with lifestyle intervention alone is for a “plateau” at 6 months, although with newer medications, weight loss will continue for more than a year. That 1-year goal might be 15% (30 lb for our 200-lb patient) or even more, based on the patient’s baseline weight and body composition.

Weight-loss calculators can be useful tools for patients and health care providers. They can be found online and include the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner and the Pennington Biomedical Weight Loss Predictor Calculator. These tools give patients a realistic expectation of how fast weight loss can occur and provide guidelines to measure success.
 

Can patients lose too much weight?

In this patient population, losing too much weight is not typically a concern. However, newer medications are achieving average weight losses of 17% and 22% at 62 weeks, as reported by this news organization. There is a wide variation in response to these newer agents which target appetite, and many patients are losing more than the average percentages.

Remembering that the goal of weight loss is the reduction of excess abnormal body fat, we want patients to preserve as much lean mass as possible. Weight-bearing exercise can help during the weight-loss phase, but large or rapid weight loss can be concerning, especially in older individuals. When the BMI drops below 25, we want to watch patients carefully. Measurement of body composition, including bone mineral density, with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) can help. This is a scenario where dose reduction of antiobesity medication can be indicated, and good clinical judgment is required to keep weight loss at healthy levels.
 

The future of weight loss

In the past, our strategy has been to promote as much weight loss as possible. With more effective medications, our strategy will have to change to a treat-to-target approach, such as we already use in hypertension and diabetes.

With the ability to produce powerful effects on appetite will come the need to not only target weight loss but to target preservation of lean mass and even to target different approaches for weight-loss maintenance. At present, we have no evidence that stopping medications results in anything other than weight regain. The study of different approaches to weight-loss maintenance will require our full attention.

Dr. Ryan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, consultant, or trustee for: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand.

Donna Ryan, MD, is Professor Emerita, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.

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

What is the real goal of weight loss? In health care, reducing excess body fat is known to improve many complications faced by patients with obesity. Even modest to moderate weight loss contributes to improvements in health. Normalizing body weight is not required.

While our culture promotes an ideal body size, in the health care setting, our attention must focus on achieving health improvement. We need to be more tolerant of variations in body size if patients are healthy. Of note, varying amounts of weight loss produce improvement in the different complications of obesity, so the amount of weight loss required for improving one condition differs from that required to improve another condition.

When we prescribe weight loss for health improvement, we are trying to reduce both the mechanical burden of fat and the excess ectopic and visceral body fat that is driving disease. The good news about the physiology of weight loss is that we do not need to attain a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or even 30 to have health improvement. The excess abnormal body fat is the first to go!

Losing weight causes a disproportional reduction in ectopic and visceral fat depots. With a 5% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 9%. With 16% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 30%. Clearing of liver fat is even more dramatic. With 16% weight loss, 65% of liver fat is cleared.

Because ectopic abnormal fat is cleared preferentially with weight loss, it affects different tissues with varying amounts of weight loss.
 

Weight loss and diabetes

A close relationship exists between weight loss and insulin sensitivity. With just 5% weight loss, insulin sensitivity in the liver and adipose tissue is greatly improved, but while muscle insulin sensitivity is improved at just 5% weight loss, it continues to improve with further weight loss. Indeed, weight loss has enormous benefits in improving glycemia in prediabetes and diabetes.

In patients with impaired glucose tolerance, weight loss of 10% can eliminate progression to type 2 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes who still have beta-cell reserve, 15% weight loss can produce diabetes remission – normoglycemia without diabetes medications.
 

Weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors

Even very small amounts of weight loss – 3% – can improve triglycerides and glycemia. It takes 5% weight loss to show benefits in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. For all of these, additional weight loss brings more improvement. Inflammatory markers are more difficult. It takes 10%-15% weight loss to improve most of these – for example, C-reactive protein.

Weight loss and other complications

It takes 10% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvements in symptoms in obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. For knee pain, the relationship to improvement is not based on achieving a percentage loss. Each pound of weight lost can result in a fourfold reduction in the load exerted on the knee per step during daily activities, but it is important to reduce weight before there is structural damage, because weight loss can’t repair damaged knee joints. Moderate weight loss (5%-10%) produces improvements in quality-of-life measures, in urinary stress incontinence symptoms, and in measures of sexual function. It probably takes 15% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvement in cardiovascular events.

Must heavier patients lose more weight?

To answer this question, it is important to think in terms of percent weight loss rather than pounds or kilograms. In large studies of lifestyle intervention, of course individuals with higher BMI lost more weight. But the percentage weight loss was the same across BMI categories: class 1 (BMI 30-35), class 2 (BMI 35-40), class 3 (BMI > 40). Furthermore, the improvement in risk factors was the same across BMI categories. Those with class 3 obesity had the same improvements as those with class 1. This provides further rationale for thinking about weight loss as a percentage from baseline weight rather than as simply a weight-loss goal in pounds.

Goal setting is an important part of any behavioral intervention

At the start of a weight-loss intervention, the health care provider should raise the issue of the goal and the time course for achieving it. Patients often have unrealistic expectations, wanting to achieve large amounts of weight loss rapidly. Unfortunately, popular culture has reinforced this idea with advertisements using “lose 10 pounds the first week” and promoting before-and-after pictures of weight-loss results. The job of the health care provider is to coach and guide the patient in terms of achievable weight loss that can bring health improvement safely. Managing patient expectations is critical to long-term success.

Think in terms of percentage weight loss, not pounds, and set goals at achievable time points

Help patients translate a percent weight-loss goal to a pounds goal at 3, 6, and 12 months. With the emergence of medications approved for chronic weight management with robust weight-loss efficacy, it now is possible to achieve a weight-loss goal of 10% or 15% with regularity, and some patients will be able to achieve 20% or 25% weight loss with newer medications.

We should help our patients set a goal by calculating a goal for certain time points. A good goal for 3 months would be 5% weight loss. For our 200-lb patient, we would translate that to 10 lb in 3 months. For 6 months, the goal should be 10% (20 lb for our 200-lb patient). The usual trajectory of weight loss with lifestyle intervention alone is for a “plateau” at 6 months, although with newer medications, weight loss will continue for more than a year. That 1-year goal might be 15% (30 lb for our 200-lb patient) or even more, based on the patient’s baseline weight and body composition.

Weight-loss calculators can be useful tools for patients and health care providers. They can be found online and include the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner and the Pennington Biomedical Weight Loss Predictor Calculator. These tools give patients a realistic expectation of how fast weight loss can occur and provide guidelines to measure success.
 

Can patients lose too much weight?

In this patient population, losing too much weight is not typically a concern. However, newer medications are achieving average weight losses of 17% and 22% at 62 weeks, as reported by this news organization. There is a wide variation in response to these newer agents which target appetite, and many patients are losing more than the average percentages.

Remembering that the goal of weight loss is the reduction of excess abnormal body fat, we want patients to preserve as much lean mass as possible. Weight-bearing exercise can help during the weight-loss phase, but large or rapid weight loss can be concerning, especially in older individuals. When the BMI drops below 25, we want to watch patients carefully. Measurement of body composition, including bone mineral density, with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) can help. This is a scenario where dose reduction of antiobesity medication can be indicated, and good clinical judgment is required to keep weight loss at healthy levels.
 

The future of weight loss

In the past, our strategy has been to promote as much weight loss as possible. With more effective medications, our strategy will have to change to a treat-to-target approach, such as we already use in hypertension and diabetes.

With the ability to produce powerful effects on appetite will come the need to not only target weight loss but to target preservation of lean mass and even to target different approaches for weight-loss maintenance. At present, we have no evidence that stopping medications results in anything other than weight regain. The study of different approaches to weight-loss maintenance will require our full attention.

Dr. Ryan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, consultant, or trustee for: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand.

Donna Ryan, MD, is Professor Emerita, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.

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

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.