People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

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

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

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

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

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

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.

Raycat/Getty Images

“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”

After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.

Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Independent risk factor

For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.

ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.

Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.

Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.

In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).

Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.

The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).

No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.

The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
 

Clinically useful?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”

In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”

Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”

“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.

John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.

They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.

Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.

“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.

Raycat/Getty Images

“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”

After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.

Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Independent risk factor

For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.

ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.

Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.

Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.

In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).

Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.

The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).

No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.

The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
 

Clinically useful?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”

In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”

Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”

“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.

John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.

They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.

Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.

“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.

Raycat/Getty Images

“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”

After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.

Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Independent risk factor

For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.

ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.

Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.

Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.

In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).

Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.

The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).

No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.

The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
 

Clinically useful?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”

In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”

Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”

“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.

John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.

They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.

Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.

“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.

Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.

Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.

Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

A small potential increased risk of retinopathy worsening at 1 year with injected semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, doesn’t outweigh the drug’s cardiovascular benefits but does highlight the need for baseline ophthalmologic evaluation before initiating treatment and ongoing retinal monitoring, researchers say.

That conclusion was based on data from a meta-analysis of the seven major cardiovascular outcomes trials of GLP-1 agonists currently on the market.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

The findings were recently published in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, by Stewart G. Albert, MD, and colleagues.

Concerns about retinopathy worsening with the GLP-1 agonist drug class first arose from the SUSTAIN-6 cardiovascular outcomes trial for injectable semaglutide, although a subsequent analysis of data from that trial appeared to suggest the problem is likely due to rapid glucose-lowering in already vulnerable patients rather than a drug-specific effect. This effect had been previously reported, most notably in the landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.

In this new meta-analysis, “we showed that with improvements in A1c there were correlations with decreases in the rate of cardiovascular events but increases in the rate of retinopathy,” Dr. Albert, of St. Louis University, told this news organization.

“As a class of drugs, we did not find an increased rate of retinopathy. The effect of GLP-1 agonists on retinopathy did not appear to be due to an immediate direct toxic effect of the drug. The worsening of the rate of retinopathy was seen with semaglutide after 1 year of therapy and when there was a decrease in A1c of 1%,” he explained.

He noted that because the increased risk was seen primarily among those who already had retinopathy at baseline, “it would seem prudent to know the level of retinopathy either before or plan for close ophthalmologic monitoring around the time of drug initiation ... We routinely evaluate patients with known type 2 diabetes mellitus at yearly intervals for retinopathy. From our data, we saw worsening at 1 year of drug exposure, but we do not know the exact time when the changes occurred during that year.”

The Ozempic label advises that “patients with a history of diabetic retinopathy should be monitored for progression of diabetic retinopathy” but doesn’t specifically mention baseline assessment at the time of drug initiation.
 

No increase in retinopathy risk for GLP-1 agonist class overall

The seven trials in the meta-analysis comprised 56,004 participants, with baseline retinopathy prevalence ranging from 9% to 31%.

For the GLP-1 agonist class overall, there was no significant increase in the relative rate (RR) of retinopathy (RR, 1.09; P = .36), while there were significant reductions in relative rates of major adverse cardiac events, overall deaths, and cardiovascular deaths (all P < .001 or P = .001).

The increased retinopathy risk was seen only in the subcutaneous semaglutide group (RR, 1.73; P = .02).

The overall number needed to harm was 1,000 and the number to treat was 77. For semaglutide, those values were 77 and 43, respectively.

There was a significant correlation between a decrease in major adverse cardiac events and a decrease in A1c (P = .014), while for retinopathy, the risk increased with improved A1c (P = .076).
 

Semaglutide subanalysis finds increased retinopathy worsening

Dr. Albert and colleagues conducted a separate subanalysis of 11 studies of semaglutide that enrolled 11,894 patients, of which 6 studies (n = 5,610) were of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) and 5 studies were of subcutaneous semaglutide (Ozempic; n = 6,284).

In the subanalysis, there was an overall increase in relative rates of new or worsening retinopathy (RR, 1.218; P = .049).

The change in relative rate of retinopathy was predominantly found for subcutaneous semaglutide given for longer than 1 year (RR, 1.559; P = .022) and decreases in A1c of more than 1.0% (RR, 1.590; P = .016). No such differences were seen with oral semaglutide.

A further evaluation of the data without the SUSTAIN 6 trial showed no effect on retinopathy but the analysis lacked power.

Dr. Albert told this news organization: “We did not find an immediate toxic effect of any drug. However, we cannot rule out that there was a cumulative effect of the dose over longer times.”

No disclosures were given.

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

A small potential increased risk of retinopathy worsening at 1 year with injected semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, doesn’t outweigh the drug’s cardiovascular benefits but does highlight the need for baseline ophthalmologic evaluation before initiating treatment and ongoing retinal monitoring, researchers say.

That conclusion was based on data from a meta-analysis of the seven major cardiovascular outcomes trials of GLP-1 agonists currently on the market.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

The findings were recently published in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, by Stewart G. Albert, MD, and colleagues.

Concerns about retinopathy worsening with the GLP-1 agonist drug class first arose from the SUSTAIN-6 cardiovascular outcomes trial for injectable semaglutide, although a subsequent analysis of data from that trial appeared to suggest the problem is likely due to rapid glucose-lowering in already vulnerable patients rather than a drug-specific effect. This effect had been previously reported, most notably in the landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.

In this new meta-analysis, “we showed that with improvements in A1c there were correlations with decreases in the rate of cardiovascular events but increases in the rate of retinopathy,” Dr. Albert, of St. Louis University, told this news organization.

“As a class of drugs, we did not find an increased rate of retinopathy. The effect of GLP-1 agonists on retinopathy did not appear to be due to an immediate direct toxic effect of the drug. The worsening of the rate of retinopathy was seen with semaglutide after 1 year of therapy and when there was a decrease in A1c of 1%,” he explained.

He noted that because the increased risk was seen primarily among those who already had retinopathy at baseline, “it would seem prudent to know the level of retinopathy either before or plan for close ophthalmologic monitoring around the time of drug initiation ... We routinely evaluate patients with known type 2 diabetes mellitus at yearly intervals for retinopathy. From our data, we saw worsening at 1 year of drug exposure, but we do not know the exact time when the changes occurred during that year.”

The Ozempic label advises that “patients with a history of diabetic retinopathy should be monitored for progression of diabetic retinopathy” but doesn’t specifically mention baseline assessment at the time of drug initiation.
 

No increase in retinopathy risk for GLP-1 agonist class overall

The seven trials in the meta-analysis comprised 56,004 participants, with baseline retinopathy prevalence ranging from 9% to 31%.

For the GLP-1 agonist class overall, there was no significant increase in the relative rate (RR) of retinopathy (RR, 1.09; P = .36), while there were significant reductions in relative rates of major adverse cardiac events, overall deaths, and cardiovascular deaths (all P < .001 or P = .001).

The increased retinopathy risk was seen only in the subcutaneous semaglutide group (RR, 1.73; P = .02).

The overall number needed to harm was 1,000 and the number to treat was 77. For semaglutide, those values were 77 and 43, respectively.

There was a significant correlation between a decrease in major adverse cardiac events and a decrease in A1c (P = .014), while for retinopathy, the risk increased with improved A1c (P = .076).
 

Semaglutide subanalysis finds increased retinopathy worsening

Dr. Albert and colleagues conducted a separate subanalysis of 11 studies of semaglutide that enrolled 11,894 patients, of which 6 studies (n = 5,610) were of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) and 5 studies were of subcutaneous semaglutide (Ozempic; n = 6,284).

In the subanalysis, there was an overall increase in relative rates of new or worsening retinopathy (RR, 1.218; P = .049).

The change in relative rate of retinopathy was predominantly found for subcutaneous semaglutide given for longer than 1 year (RR, 1.559; P = .022) and decreases in A1c of more than 1.0% (RR, 1.590; P = .016). No such differences were seen with oral semaglutide.

A further evaluation of the data without the SUSTAIN 6 trial showed no effect on retinopathy but the analysis lacked power.

Dr. Albert told this news organization: “We did not find an immediate toxic effect of any drug. However, we cannot rule out that there was a cumulative effect of the dose over longer times.”

No disclosures were given.

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

A small potential increased risk of retinopathy worsening at 1 year with injected semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, doesn’t outweigh the drug’s cardiovascular benefits but does highlight the need for baseline ophthalmologic evaluation before initiating treatment and ongoing retinal monitoring, researchers say.

That conclusion was based on data from a meta-analysis of the seven major cardiovascular outcomes trials of GLP-1 agonists currently on the market.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

The findings were recently published in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, by Stewart G. Albert, MD, and colleagues.

Concerns about retinopathy worsening with the GLP-1 agonist drug class first arose from the SUSTAIN-6 cardiovascular outcomes trial for injectable semaglutide, although a subsequent analysis of data from that trial appeared to suggest the problem is likely due to rapid glucose-lowering in already vulnerable patients rather than a drug-specific effect. This effect had been previously reported, most notably in the landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.

In this new meta-analysis, “we showed that with improvements in A1c there were correlations with decreases in the rate of cardiovascular events but increases in the rate of retinopathy,” Dr. Albert, of St. Louis University, told this news organization.

“As a class of drugs, we did not find an increased rate of retinopathy. The effect of GLP-1 agonists on retinopathy did not appear to be due to an immediate direct toxic effect of the drug. The worsening of the rate of retinopathy was seen with semaglutide after 1 year of therapy and when there was a decrease in A1c of 1%,” he explained.

He noted that because the increased risk was seen primarily among those who already had retinopathy at baseline, “it would seem prudent to know the level of retinopathy either before or plan for close ophthalmologic monitoring around the time of drug initiation ... We routinely evaluate patients with known type 2 diabetes mellitus at yearly intervals for retinopathy. From our data, we saw worsening at 1 year of drug exposure, but we do not know the exact time when the changes occurred during that year.”

The Ozempic label advises that “patients with a history of diabetic retinopathy should be monitored for progression of diabetic retinopathy” but doesn’t specifically mention baseline assessment at the time of drug initiation.
 

No increase in retinopathy risk for GLP-1 agonist class overall

The seven trials in the meta-analysis comprised 56,004 participants, with baseline retinopathy prevalence ranging from 9% to 31%.

For the GLP-1 agonist class overall, there was no significant increase in the relative rate (RR) of retinopathy (RR, 1.09; P = .36), while there were significant reductions in relative rates of major adverse cardiac events, overall deaths, and cardiovascular deaths (all P < .001 or P = .001).

The increased retinopathy risk was seen only in the subcutaneous semaglutide group (RR, 1.73; P = .02).

The overall number needed to harm was 1,000 and the number to treat was 77. For semaglutide, those values were 77 and 43, respectively.

There was a significant correlation between a decrease in major adverse cardiac events and a decrease in A1c (P = .014), while for retinopathy, the risk increased with improved A1c (P = .076).
 

Semaglutide subanalysis finds increased retinopathy worsening

Dr. Albert and colleagues conducted a separate subanalysis of 11 studies of semaglutide that enrolled 11,894 patients, of which 6 studies (n = 5,610) were of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) and 5 studies were of subcutaneous semaglutide (Ozempic; n = 6,284).

In the subanalysis, there was an overall increase in relative rates of new or worsening retinopathy (RR, 1.218; P = .049).

The change in relative rate of retinopathy was predominantly found for subcutaneous semaglutide given for longer than 1 year (RR, 1.559; P = .022) and decreases in A1c of more than 1.0% (RR, 1.590; P = .016). No such differences were seen with oral semaglutide.

A further evaluation of the data without the SUSTAIN 6 trial showed no effect on retinopathy but the analysis lacked power.

Dr. Albert told this news organization: “We did not find an immediate toxic effect of any drug. However, we cannot rule out that there was a cumulative effect of the dose over longer times.”

No disclosures were given.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

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

Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.

The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.

TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
 

Perceived torsemide advantages

Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.

TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.

The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.

TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

Reflections of standard practice

With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.

Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”

Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .

Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
 

Trial design caveats

But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”

The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.

The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.

“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”

TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.

The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.

TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
 

Perceived torsemide advantages

Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.

TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.

The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.

TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

Reflections of standard practice

With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.

Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”

Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .

Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
 

Trial design caveats

But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”

The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.

The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.

“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”

TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.

The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.

TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
 

Perceived torsemide advantages

Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.

TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.

The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.

TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

Reflections of standard practice

With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.

Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”

Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .

Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
 

Trial design caveats

But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”

The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.

The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.

“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”

TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately two out of three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not have concurrent intellectual disability, according to a population study of ASD trends.

Intellectual functioning remains the best predictor of functional outcomes in kids with ASD, and missing those with no cognitive impairment (ASD-N) can prevent intervention and affect future achievement.

Furthermore, while the study found that ASD-N increased among all demographic subgroups from 2000 to 2016, it also observed widespread health disparities in identifying ASD-N, especially in Black, Hispanic, and underprivileged children.

“ASD is a major public health concern and prevalence estimates are likely to continue to rise as disparities are reduced and ASD identification is improved,” wrote researchers led by Josephine Shenouda, DrPH, MS, of Rutgers School of Public Health in Piscataway, N.J., in Pediatrics .

The study period saw a surprising 500% increase in the prevalence of ASD-N and a 200% increase in the prevalence of cognitive impairment–associated ASD-I , with higher rates across all sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups. The five- and twofold respective increases are consistent with previous research.

“To a large degree, the rise in autism estimates has been driven by individuals without intellectual disability,” Dr. Shenouda said in an interview. “The best way to address increasing autism and to affect disparities in autism identification is through universal autism screening during the toddler period. And different metrics of functional outcomes need to be developed to understand the expression of autism better.”

Her group had previously seen autism estimates of approximately 1% in 2000 rise to 3% by 2016 but had noted variations, with some communities exceeding 5% for autism estimates. “That led to the question of why, and we saw that in areas with high estimates, we are identifying more children with autism without intellectual disability,” she said. “We wanted to know if the increase over time was equally distributed among children with autism with and without intellectual disability.”
 

A study in disparities

The cross-sectional study examined data from active ASD surveillance by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network in 8-year-olds residing in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area. Overall, 4,661 children were identified with ASD, with ASD-I affecting 1,505 (32.3%), and ASD-N affecting 2,764 (59.3%). Non-Hispanic Black children who were affected numbered 946 (20.3%), while 1,230 (26.4%) were Hispanic, and 2,114 (45.4%) were non-Hispanic White.

Notably, Black children were 30% less likely to be identified with ASD-N compared with White children, and children residing in affluent areas were 80% more likely to be identified with ASD-N versus those in underserved areas. Furthermore, a greater proportion of children with ASD-I resided in vulnerable areas compared with their counterparts with ASD-N.

While males had a higher prevalence compared with females regardless of intellectual disability status, male-to-female ratios were slightly lower among ASD-I compared with ASD-N cases.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Barbara J. Howard, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the increasing gap in identifying ASD-N according to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status measures probably reflects greater parental awareness of ASD and access to diagnostic services in White families and those of higher socioeconomic status. “There were no racial, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status differences in the prevalence of the more obvious and impairing ASD-I in the sample, but its prevalence was also increasing over this period,” she said.

Although the greater recognition of the less impairing ASD-N is important for optimal outcomes through intervention, the increasing discrepancies mean that more children generally and more marginalized children specifically are not being diagnosed or served. “There should be no differences in prevalence by these characteristics,” Dr. Howard said. “The striking inequity for non-White children and those of lower socioeconomic status in being diagnosed with ASD-N and thus qualifying for intervention that could improve their long-term functioning is likely also compounded by service, educational, and social disadvantages they may experience.”

In light of these disparities, an accompanying editorial by Emily Hotez, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Lindsay Shea, DrPH, of the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute at Drexel University, Philadelphia, argues that social determinants of health (SDOH) should be prioritized in the public health surveillance of autism since these factors potentially contribute to the general underdiagnosis of autism in minority groups and merit more attention from pediatricians. While SDOH affects many nonautistic conditions, it may be even more important for families dealing with the stressors and isolation associated with autism, the commentators said. “Our commentary speaks to the utility of increasing SDOH surveillance in improving our understanding of autistic individuals’ needs, experiences, and priorities on a population level,” Dr. Hotez said in an interview. She added that integrating SDOH surveillance into pediatricians’ workflows will lead to improvements in clinical practice and patient care in the long term.

“Specifically, increased uptake of universal SDOH screening and referral practices will allow pediatricians to more proactively link autistic children and families, particularly those from marginalized groups, with much-needed health-promoting services and supports.” She cautioned, however, that while most providers believe universal SDOH screening is important, fewer report that screening is feasible or feel prepared to address families’ social needs when they are identified.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. The commentators had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Howard disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.
 

Approximately two out of three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not have concurrent intellectual disability, according to a population study of ASD trends.

Intellectual functioning remains the best predictor of functional outcomes in kids with ASD, and missing those with no cognitive impairment (ASD-N) can prevent intervention and affect future achievement.

Furthermore, while the study found that ASD-N increased among all demographic subgroups from 2000 to 2016, it also observed widespread health disparities in identifying ASD-N, especially in Black, Hispanic, and underprivileged children.

“ASD is a major public health concern and prevalence estimates are likely to continue to rise as disparities are reduced and ASD identification is improved,” wrote researchers led by Josephine Shenouda, DrPH, MS, of Rutgers School of Public Health in Piscataway, N.J., in Pediatrics .

The study period saw a surprising 500% increase in the prevalence of ASD-N and a 200% increase in the prevalence of cognitive impairment–associated ASD-I , with higher rates across all sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups. The five- and twofold respective increases are consistent with previous research.

“To a large degree, the rise in autism estimates has been driven by individuals without intellectual disability,” Dr. Shenouda said in an interview. “The best way to address increasing autism and to affect disparities in autism identification is through universal autism screening during the toddler period. And different metrics of functional outcomes need to be developed to understand the expression of autism better.”

Her group had previously seen autism estimates of approximately 1% in 2000 rise to 3% by 2016 but had noted variations, with some communities exceeding 5% for autism estimates. “That led to the question of why, and we saw that in areas with high estimates, we are identifying more children with autism without intellectual disability,” she said. “We wanted to know if the increase over time was equally distributed among children with autism with and without intellectual disability.”
 

A study in disparities

The cross-sectional study examined data from active ASD surveillance by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network in 8-year-olds residing in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area. Overall, 4,661 children were identified with ASD, with ASD-I affecting 1,505 (32.3%), and ASD-N affecting 2,764 (59.3%). Non-Hispanic Black children who were affected numbered 946 (20.3%), while 1,230 (26.4%) were Hispanic, and 2,114 (45.4%) were non-Hispanic White.

Notably, Black children were 30% less likely to be identified with ASD-N compared with White children, and children residing in affluent areas were 80% more likely to be identified with ASD-N versus those in underserved areas. Furthermore, a greater proportion of children with ASD-I resided in vulnerable areas compared with their counterparts with ASD-N.

While males had a higher prevalence compared with females regardless of intellectual disability status, male-to-female ratios were slightly lower among ASD-I compared with ASD-N cases.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Barbara J. Howard, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the increasing gap in identifying ASD-N according to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status measures probably reflects greater parental awareness of ASD and access to diagnostic services in White families and those of higher socioeconomic status. “There were no racial, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status differences in the prevalence of the more obvious and impairing ASD-I in the sample, but its prevalence was also increasing over this period,” she said.

Although the greater recognition of the less impairing ASD-N is important for optimal outcomes through intervention, the increasing discrepancies mean that more children generally and more marginalized children specifically are not being diagnosed or served. “There should be no differences in prevalence by these characteristics,” Dr. Howard said. “The striking inequity for non-White children and those of lower socioeconomic status in being diagnosed with ASD-N and thus qualifying for intervention that could improve their long-term functioning is likely also compounded by service, educational, and social disadvantages they may experience.”

In light of these disparities, an accompanying editorial by Emily Hotez, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Lindsay Shea, DrPH, of the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute at Drexel University, Philadelphia, argues that social determinants of health (SDOH) should be prioritized in the public health surveillance of autism since these factors potentially contribute to the general underdiagnosis of autism in minority groups and merit more attention from pediatricians. While SDOH affects many nonautistic conditions, it may be even more important for families dealing with the stressors and isolation associated with autism, the commentators said. “Our commentary speaks to the utility of increasing SDOH surveillance in improving our understanding of autistic individuals’ needs, experiences, and priorities on a population level,” Dr. Hotez said in an interview. She added that integrating SDOH surveillance into pediatricians’ workflows will lead to improvements in clinical practice and patient care in the long term.

“Specifically, increased uptake of universal SDOH screening and referral practices will allow pediatricians to more proactively link autistic children and families, particularly those from marginalized groups, with much-needed health-promoting services and supports.” She cautioned, however, that while most providers believe universal SDOH screening is important, fewer report that screening is feasible or feel prepared to address families’ social needs when they are identified.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. The commentators had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Howard disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.
 

Approximately two out of three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not have concurrent intellectual disability, according to a population study of ASD trends.

Intellectual functioning remains the best predictor of functional outcomes in kids with ASD, and missing those with no cognitive impairment (ASD-N) can prevent intervention and affect future achievement.

Furthermore, while the study found that ASD-N increased among all demographic subgroups from 2000 to 2016, it also observed widespread health disparities in identifying ASD-N, especially in Black, Hispanic, and underprivileged children.

“ASD is a major public health concern and prevalence estimates are likely to continue to rise as disparities are reduced and ASD identification is improved,” wrote researchers led by Josephine Shenouda, DrPH, MS, of Rutgers School of Public Health in Piscataway, N.J., in Pediatrics .

The study period saw a surprising 500% increase in the prevalence of ASD-N and a 200% increase in the prevalence of cognitive impairment–associated ASD-I , with higher rates across all sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups. The five- and twofold respective increases are consistent with previous research.

“To a large degree, the rise in autism estimates has been driven by individuals without intellectual disability,” Dr. Shenouda said in an interview. “The best way to address increasing autism and to affect disparities in autism identification is through universal autism screening during the toddler period. And different metrics of functional outcomes need to be developed to understand the expression of autism better.”

Her group had previously seen autism estimates of approximately 1% in 2000 rise to 3% by 2016 but had noted variations, with some communities exceeding 5% for autism estimates. “That led to the question of why, and we saw that in areas with high estimates, we are identifying more children with autism without intellectual disability,” she said. “We wanted to know if the increase over time was equally distributed among children with autism with and without intellectual disability.”
 

A study in disparities

The cross-sectional study examined data from active ASD surveillance by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network in 8-year-olds residing in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area. Overall, 4,661 children were identified with ASD, with ASD-I affecting 1,505 (32.3%), and ASD-N affecting 2,764 (59.3%). Non-Hispanic Black children who were affected numbered 946 (20.3%), while 1,230 (26.4%) were Hispanic, and 2,114 (45.4%) were non-Hispanic White.

Notably, Black children were 30% less likely to be identified with ASD-N compared with White children, and children residing in affluent areas were 80% more likely to be identified with ASD-N versus those in underserved areas. Furthermore, a greater proportion of children with ASD-I resided in vulnerable areas compared with their counterparts with ASD-N.

While males had a higher prevalence compared with females regardless of intellectual disability status, male-to-female ratios were slightly lower among ASD-I compared with ASD-N cases.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Barbara J. Howard, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the increasing gap in identifying ASD-N according to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status measures probably reflects greater parental awareness of ASD and access to diagnostic services in White families and those of higher socioeconomic status. “There were no racial, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status differences in the prevalence of the more obvious and impairing ASD-I in the sample, but its prevalence was also increasing over this period,” she said.

Although the greater recognition of the less impairing ASD-N is important for optimal outcomes through intervention, the increasing discrepancies mean that more children generally and more marginalized children specifically are not being diagnosed or served. “There should be no differences in prevalence by these characteristics,” Dr. Howard said. “The striking inequity for non-White children and those of lower socioeconomic status in being diagnosed with ASD-N and thus qualifying for intervention that could improve their long-term functioning is likely also compounded by service, educational, and social disadvantages they may experience.”

In light of these disparities, an accompanying editorial by Emily Hotez, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Lindsay Shea, DrPH, of the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute at Drexel University, Philadelphia, argues that social determinants of health (SDOH) should be prioritized in the public health surveillance of autism since these factors potentially contribute to the general underdiagnosis of autism in minority groups and merit more attention from pediatricians. While SDOH affects many nonautistic conditions, it may be even more important for families dealing with the stressors and isolation associated with autism, the commentators said. “Our commentary speaks to the utility of increasing SDOH surveillance in improving our understanding of autistic individuals’ needs, experiences, and priorities on a population level,” Dr. Hotez said in an interview. She added that integrating SDOH surveillance into pediatricians’ workflows will lead to improvements in clinical practice and patient care in the long term.

“Specifically, increased uptake of universal SDOH screening and referral practices will allow pediatricians to more proactively link autistic children and families, particularly those from marginalized groups, with much-needed health-promoting services and supports.” She cautioned, however, that while most providers believe universal SDOH screening is important, fewer report that screening is feasible or feel prepared to address families’ social needs when they are identified.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. The commentators had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Howard disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.
 

Key clinical point: Pre-existing radiographic damage was substantially prevalent in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), with secukinumab therapy being associated with the inhibition of joint tenderness and swelling; however, high baseline radiographic damage reduced the likelihood of achieving minimal disease activity (MDA).

Major finding: Overall, 86% and 60% of patients had erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) scores of >0, respectively. At week 16 and 52, 150 and 300 mg secukinumab reduced tender and swollen joint counts across all values of baseline erosion and JSN scores; however, patients with higher baseline erosion and JSN scores were less likely to achieve MDA.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, FUTURE 1 and FUTURE 5, including 1554 patients with PsA who received 300 or 150 mg secukinumab with or without a loading dose.

Disclosures: This study received funding from Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees of or owning stocks in Novartis. Seven authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis.

Source: Mease P et al. Quantification of pre-existing radiographic damage and its relationship with joint activity and long-term clinical outcomes with secukinumab therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):283 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02944-1

Key clinical point: Pre-existing radiographic damage was substantially prevalent in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), with secukinumab therapy being associated with the inhibition of joint tenderness and swelling; however, high baseline radiographic damage reduced the likelihood of achieving minimal disease activity (MDA).

Major finding: Overall, 86% and 60% of patients had erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) scores of >0, respectively. At week 16 and 52, 150 and 300 mg secukinumab reduced tender and swollen joint counts across all values of baseline erosion and JSN scores; however, patients with higher baseline erosion and JSN scores were less likely to achieve MDA.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, FUTURE 1 and FUTURE 5, including 1554 patients with PsA who received 300 or 150 mg secukinumab with or without a loading dose.

Disclosures: This study received funding from Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees of or owning stocks in Novartis. Seven authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis.

Source: Mease P et al. Quantification of pre-existing radiographic damage and its relationship with joint activity and long-term clinical outcomes with secukinumab therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):283 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02944-1

Key clinical point: Pre-existing radiographic damage was substantially prevalent in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), with secukinumab therapy being associated with the inhibition of joint tenderness and swelling; however, high baseline radiographic damage reduced the likelihood of achieving minimal disease activity (MDA).

Major finding: Overall, 86% and 60% of patients had erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) scores of >0, respectively. At week 16 and 52, 150 and 300 mg secukinumab reduced tender and swollen joint counts across all values of baseline erosion and JSN scores; however, patients with higher baseline erosion and JSN scores were less likely to achieve MDA.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, FUTURE 1 and FUTURE 5, including 1554 patients with PsA who received 300 or 150 mg secukinumab with or without a loading dose.

Disclosures: This study received funding from Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees of or owning stocks in Novartis. Seven authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis.

Source: Mease P et al. Quantification of pre-existing radiographic damage and its relationship with joint activity and long-term clinical outcomes with secukinumab therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):283 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02944-1