Younger children may be vulnerable to the reemergence of common respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as COVID-19 restrictions wane, experts say. The impact could be detrimental.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of preventative measures such as social distancing, travel restrictions, mask use, and shelter in place, reduced the transmission of respiratory viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, because older infants and toddlers have not been exposed to these bugs during the pandemic, they are vulnerable to suffering severe viral infections.

“[We’ve] been in the honeymoon for 18 months,” said Christopher J. Harrison, MD, professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo. “We are going to be coming out of the honeymoon and the children who didn’t get sick are going to start packing 2 years’ worth of infections into the next 9 months so there’s going to be twice as many as would be normal.”

The CDC issued a health advisory in June for parts of the southern United States, such as Texas, the Carolinas, and Oklahoma, encouraging broader testing for RSV – a virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms and is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children – among those who test negative for COVID-19. Virtually all children get an RSV infection by the time they are 2 years old, according to the CDC.

In previous years, RSV usually spread during the fall and spring seasons and usually peaked late December to mid-February. However, there’s been an offseason spike in the common illness this year, with nearly 2,000 confirmed cases each week of July.

Richard J. Webby, PhD, of the infectious diseases department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said that although RSV transmits more easily during the winter, the virus is able to thrive during this summer because many children have limited immunity and are more vulnerable to catching the virus than before. Population immunity normally limits a virus to circulating under its most favorable conditions, which is usually the winter. However, because there are a few more “susceptible hosts,” it gives the virus the ability to spread during a time when it typically wouldn’t be able to.

“Now we have a wider range of susceptible kids because they haven’t had that exposure over the past 18 months,” said Dr. Webby, who is on the World Health Organization’s Influenza Vaccine Composition Advisory Team. “It gives the virus more chances to transmit during conditions that are less favorable.”

Dr. Harrison said that, if children continue to take preventative measures such as wearing masks and sanitizing, they can delay catching the RSV – which can be severe in infants and young children – until they’re older and symptoms won’t be as severe.

“The swelling that these viruses cause in the trachea and the bronchial tubes is much bigger in proportion to the overall size of the tubes, so it takes less swelling to clog up the trachea or bronchial tube for the 9-month-old than it does of a 9-year-old,” Dr. Harrison said. “So if a 9-year-old was to get RSV, they’re not going to have nearly the same amount symptoms as the 9-month-old.

Dr. Harrison said delaying RSV in children was never an option before because it’s a virus that’s almost impossible to avoid.

“Hopefully, the mask means that if you get exposed, instead of getting a million virus particles from your classmate or your playmate, you may only get a couple thousand,” Dr. Harrison explained. “And maybe that’s enough that you can fight it off or it may be small enough that you get a mild infection instead of a severe infection.”

A summer surge of RSV has also occurred in Australia. A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that Western Australia saw a 98% reduction in RSV cases. This suggests that COVID-19 restrictions also delayed the RSV season.

Dr. Webby said the lax in penetrative measures against COVID-19 may also affect this upcoming flu season. Usually, around 10%-30% of the population gets infected with the flu each year, but that hasn’t happened the past couple of seasons, he said.

“There might be slightly less overall immunity to these viruses,” Dr. Webby said. “When these viruses do come back, there’s a little bit more room for them to take off.”

Although a severe influenza season rebound this winter is a possibility, Australia continues to experience a historically low flu season. Dr. Harrison, who said the northern hemisphere looks at what’s happening in Australia and the rest of the “southern half of the world because their influenza season is during our summer,” hopes this is an indication that the northern hemisphere will also experience a mild season.

However, there’s no indication of how this upcoming flu season will hit the United States and there isn’t any guidance on what could happen because these historically low levels of respiratory viruses have never happened before, Dr. Webby explained.

He said that, if COVID-19’s delta variant continues to circulate during the fall and winter seasons, it will keep other viruses at low levels. This is because there is rarely a peak of activity of different viruses at the same time.

“When you get infected with the virus, your body’s immune response has this nonspecific reaction that protects you from anything else for a short period of time,” Dr. Webby explained. “When you get a lot of one virus circulating, it’s really hard for these other viruses to get into that population and sort of set off an epidemic of their own.”

To prepare for an unsure influenza season, Dr. Harrison suggests making the influenza vaccine available in August as opposed to October.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Webby reported no conflicts of interest.

Younger children may be vulnerable to the reemergence of common respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as COVID-19 restrictions wane, experts say. The impact could be detrimental.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of preventative measures such as social distancing, travel restrictions, mask use, and shelter in place, reduced the transmission of respiratory viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, because older infants and toddlers have not been exposed to these bugs during the pandemic, they are vulnerable to suffering severe viral infections.

“[We’ve] been in the honeymoon for 18 months,” said Christopher J. Harrison, MD, professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo. “We are going to be coming out of the honeymoon and the children who didn’t get sick are going to start packing 2 years’ worth of infections into the next 9 months so there’s going to be twice as many as would be normal.”

The CDC issued a health advisory in June for parts of the southern United States, such as Texas, the Carolinas, and Oklahoma, encouraging broader testing for RSV – a virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms and is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children – among those who test negative for COVID-19. Virtually all children get an RSV infection by the time they are 2 years old, according to the CDC.

In previous years, RSV usually spread during the fall and spring seasons and usually peaked late December to mid-February. However, there’s been an offseason spike in the common illness this year, with nearly 2,000 confirmed cases each week of July.

Richard J. Webby, PhD, of the infectious diseases department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said that although RSV transmits more easily during the winter, the virus is able to thrive during this summer because many children have limited immunity and are more vulnerable to catching the virus than before. Population immunity normally limits a virus to circulating under its most favorable conditions, which is usually the winter. However, because there are a few more “susceptible hosts,” it gives the virus the ability to spread during a time when it typically wouldn’t be able to.

“Now we have a wider range of susceptible kids because they haven’t had that exposure over the past 18 months,” said Dr. Webby, who is on the World Health Organization’s Influenza Vaccine Composition Advisory Team. “It gives the virus more chances to transmit during conditions that are less favorable.”

Dr. Harrison said that, if children continue to take preventative measures such as wearing masks and sanitizing, they can delay catching the RSV – which can be severe in infants and young children – until they’re older and symptoms won’t be as severe.

“The swelling that these viruses cause in the trachea and the bronchial tubes is much bigger in proportion to the overall size of the tubes, so it takes less swelling to clog up the trachea or bronchial tube for the 9-month-old than it does of a 9-year-old,” Dr. Harrison said. “So if a 9-year-old was to get RSV, they’re not going to have nearly the same amount symptoms as the 9-month-old.

Dr. Harrison said delaying RSV in children was never an option before because it’s a virus that’s almost impossible to avoid.

“Hopefully, the mask means that if you get exposed, instead of getting a million virus particles from your classmate or your playmate, you may only get a couple thousand,” Dr. Harrison explained. “And maybe that’s enough that you can fight it off or it may be small enough that you get a mild infection instead of a severe infection.”

A summer surge of RSV has also occurred in Australia. A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that Western Australia saw a 98% reduction in RSV cases. This suggests that COVID-19 restrictions also delayed the RSV season.

Dr. Webby said the lax in penetrative measures against COVID-19 may also affect this upcoming flu season. Usually, around 10%-30% of the population gets infected with the flu each year, but that hasn’t happened the past couple of seasons, he said.

“There might be slightly less overall immunity to these viruses,” Dr. Webby said. “When these viruses do come back, there’s a little bit more room for them to take off.”

Although a severe influenza season rebound this winter is a possibility, Australia continues to experience a historically low flu season. Dr. Harrison, who said the northern hemisphere looks at what’s happening in Australia and the rest of the “southern half of the world because their influenza season is during our summer,” hopes this is an indication that the northern hemisphere will also experience a mild season.

However, there’s no indication of how this upcoming flu season will hit the United States and there isn’t any guidance on what could happen because these historically low levels of respiratory viruses have never happened before, Dr. Webby explained.

He said that, if COVID-19’s delta variant continues to circulate during the fall and winter seasons, it will keep other viruses at low levels. This is because there is rarely a peak of activity of different viruses at the same time.

“When you get infected with the virus, your body’s immune response has this nonspecific reaction that protects you from anything else for a short period of time,” Dr. Webby explained. “When you get a lot of one virus circulating, it’s really hard for these other viruses to get into that population and sort of set off an epidemic of their own.”

To prepare for an unsure influenza season, Dr. Harrison suggests making the influenza vaccine available in August as opposed to October.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Webby reported no conflicts of interest.

Younger children may be vulnerable to the reemergence of common respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as COVID-19 restrictions wane, experts say. The impact could be detrimental.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of preventative measures such as social distancing, travel restrictions, mask use, and shelter in place, reduced the transmission of respiratory viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, because older infants and toddlers have not been exposed to these bugs during the pandemic, they are vulnerable to suffering severe viral infections.

“[We’ve] been in the honeymoon for 18 months,” said Christopher J. Harrison, MD, professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo. “We are going to be coming out of the honeymoon and the children who didn’t get sick are going to start packing 2 years’ worth of infections into the next 9 months so there’s going to be twice as many as would be normal.”

The CDC issued a health advisory in June for parts of the southern United States, such as Texas, the Carolinas, and Oklahoma, encouraging broader testing for RSV – a virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms and is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children – among those who test negative for COVID-19. Virtually all children get an RSV infection by the time they are 2 years old, according to the CDC.

In previous years, RSV usually spread during the fall and spring seasons and usually peaked late December to mid-February. However, there’s been an offseason spike in the common illness this year, with nearly 2,000 confirmed cases each week of July.

Richard J. Webby, PhD, of the infectious diseases department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said that although RSV transmits more easily during the winter, the virus is able to thrive during this summer because many children have limited immunity and are more vulnerable to catching the virus than before. Population immunity normally limits a virus to circulating under its most favorable conditions, which is usually the winter. However, because there are a few more “susceptible hosts,” it gives the virus the ability to spread during a time when it typically wouldn’t be able to.

“Now we have a wider range of susceptible kids because they haven’t had that exposure over the past 18 months,” said Dr. Webby, who is on the World Health Organization’s Influenza Vaccine Composition Advisory Team. “It gives the virus more chances to transmit during conditions that are less favorable.”

Dr. Harrison said that, if children continue to take preventative measures such as wearing masks and sanitizing, they can delay catching the RSV – which can be severe in infants and young children – until they’re older and symptoms won’t be as severe.

“The swelling that these viruses cause in the trachea and the bronchial tubes is much bigger in proportion to the overall size of the tubes, so it takes less swelling to clog up the trachea or bronchial tube for the 9-month-old than it does of a 9-year-old,” Dr. Harrison said. “So if a 9-year-old was to get RSV, they’re not going to have nearly the same amount symptoms as the 9-month-old.

Dr. Harrison said delaying RSV in children was never an option before because it’s a virus that’s almost impossible to avoid.

“Hopefully, the mask means that if you get exposed, instead of getting a million virus particles from your classmate or your playmate, you may only get a couple thousand,” Dr. Harrison explained. “And maybe that’s enough that you can fight it off or it may be small enough that you get a mild infection instead of a severe infection.”

A summer surge of RSV has also occurred in Australia. A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that Western Australia saw a 98% reduction in RSV cases. This suggests that COVID-19 restrictions also delayed the RSV season.

Dr. Webby said the lax in penetrative measures against COVID-19 may also affect this upcoming flu season. Usually, around 10%-30% of the population gets infected with the flu each year, but that hasn’t happened the past couple of seasons, he said.

“There might be slightly less overall immunity to these viruses,” Dr. Webby said. “When these viruses do come back, there’s a little bit more room for them to take off.”

Although a severe influenza season rebound this winter is a possibility, Australia continues to experience a historically low flu season. Dr. Harrison, who said the northern hemisphere looks at what’s happening in Australia and the rest of the “southern half of the world because their influenza season is during our summer,” hopes this is an indication that the northern hemisphere will also experience a mild season.

However, there’s no indication of how this upcoming flu season will hit the United States and there isn’t any guidance on what could happen because these historically low levels of respiratory viruses have never happened before, Dr. Webby explained.

He said that, if COVID-19’s delta variant continues to circulate during the fall and winter seasons, it will keep other viruses at low levels. This is because there is rarely a peak of activity of different viruses at the same time.

“When you get infected with the virus, your body’s immune response has this nonspecific reaction that protects you from anything else for a short period of time,” Dr. Webby explained. “When you get a lot of one virus circulating, it’s really hard for these other viruses to get into that population and sort of set off an epidemic of their own.”

To prepare for an unsure influenza season, Dr. Harrison suggests making the influenza vaccine available in August as opposed to October.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Webby reported no conflicts of interest.

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

Researchers have identified clusters of blood-based metabolites, molecules produced by cells during metabolism, that appear to predict subsequent dementia risk in new findings that may provide a prevention target.

Investigators found one of the clusters includes small high-density lipoprotein (HDL) metabolites associated with vascular dementia, while another cluster involves ketone bodies and citrate that are primarily associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Ketone bodies, or ketones, are three related compounds – acetone, acetoacetic acid, and beta-hydroxybutyric acid (BHB) – produced by the liver during fat metabolism. Citrate is a salt or ester of citric acid.

Weight loss before dementia explained?

For the study, investigators included 125,000 patients from the UK Biobank, which includes 51,031 who were over age 60 at baseline. Of these, 1,188 developed dementia during a follow-up of about 10 years; 553 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and 298 with vascular dementia.

Researchers used a platform that covers 249 metabolic measures, including small molecules, fatty acids, and lipoprotein lipids.

They estimated risk associated with these metabolites, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, technical variables, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, education, metabolic and neuropsychiatric medication, and APOE4 genotypes.

Of the 249 metabolites, 47 (19%) were associated with dementia risk in those over age 60, after adjustment.

The investigators examined effect estimates for associations of metabolites with both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia over age 60 versus hippocampal volume under age 60. They found a “very strong, very significant” association for Alzheimer’s disease, and a “marginally significant” association for vascular dementia, said Dr. van Duijn.

This would be expected, as there is a much stronger correlation between hippocampal and Alzheimer’s disease versus vascular dementia, she added.

“We not only see that the metabolites predict dementia, but also early pathology. This makes these findings rather interesting for targeting prevention,” she said. An analysis of total brain volume showed “very strong, very similar, very significant associations” for both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia,” added Dr. van Duijn.

The researchers found a major shift in various metabolites involved in energy metabolism in the 10-year period before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. These changes include low levels of branched-chain amino acids and omega-3 fatty acids and high levels of glucose, citrate, acetone, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and acetate. “This finding is in line with that in APOE models that show reduced energy metabolism over age in the brain,” said Dr. van Duijn.

She added that high levels of some of these metabolites are associated with low body weight before dementia onset, which may explain the weight loss seen in patients before developing the disease. “Our hypothesis is that the liver is burning the fat reserves of the patients in order to provide the brain with fuel,” she explained.
 

Diet a prevention target?

The results also showed ketone bodies increase with age, which may represent the aging brain’s “compensation mechanism” to deal with an energy shortage, said Dr. van Duijn. “Supplementation of ketone bodies, branched-chain amino and omega-3 fatty acids may help support brain function.”

The fact that ketone bodies were positively associated with the risk of dementia is “a very important finding,” she said.

Following this and other presentations, session cochair Rima Kaddurah-Daouk, PhD, professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted the research is “an important part of trying to decipher some of the mysteries in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The research contributes to the understanding of how nutrition and diet could influence metabolism and then the brain and is “opening the horizon” for thinking about “strategies for therapeutic interventions,” she said.

The study received funding support from the National Institute on Aging. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have identified clusters of blood-based metabolites, molecules produced by cells during metabolism, that appear to predict subsequent dementia risk in new findings that may provide a prevention target.

Investigators found one of the clusters includes small high-density lipoprotein (HDL) metabolites associated with vascular dementia, while another cluster involves ketone bodies and citrate that are primarily associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Ketone bodies, or ketones, are three related compounds – acetone, acetoacetic acid, and beta-hydroxybutyric acid (BHB) – produced by the liver during fat metabolism. Citrate is a salt or ester of citric acid.

Weight loss before dementia explained?

For the study, investigators included 125,000 patients from the UK Biobank, which includes 51,031 who were over age 60 at baseline. Of these, 1,188 developed dementia during a follow-up of about 10 years; 553 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and 298 with vascular dementia.

Researchers used a platform that covers 249 metabolic measures, including small molecules, fatty acids, and lipoprotein lipids.

They estimated risk associated with these metabolites, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, technical variables, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, education, metabolic and neuropsychiatric medication, and APOE4 genotypes.

Of the 249 metabolites, 47 (19%) were associated with dementia risk in those over age 60, after adjustment.

The investigators examined effect estimates for associations of metabolites with both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia over age 60 versus hippocampal volume under age 60. They found a “very strong, very significant” association for Alzheimer’s disease, and a “marginally significant” association for vascular dementia, said Dr. van Duijn.

This would be expected, as there is a much stronger correlation between hippocampal and Alzheimer’s disease versus vascular dementia, she added.

“We not only see that the metabolites predict dementia, but also early pathology. This makes these findings rather interesting for targeting prevention,” she said. An analysis of total brain volume showed “very strong, very similar, very significant associations” for both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia,” added Dr. van Duijn.

The researchers found a major shift in various metabolites involved in energy metabolism in the 10-year period before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. These changes include low levels of branched-chain amino acids and omega-3 fatty acids and high levels of glucose, citrate, acetone, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and acetate. “This finding is in line with that in APOE models that show reduced energy metabolism over age in the brain,” said Dr. van Duijn.

She added that high levels of some of these metabolites are associated with low body weight before dementia onset, which may explain the weight loss seen in patients before developing the disease. “Our hypothesis is that the liver is burning the fat reserves of the patients in order to provide the brain with fuel,” she explained.
 

Diet a prevention target?

The results also showed ketone bodies increase with age, which may represent the aging brain’s “compensation mechanism” to deal with an energy shortage, said Dr. van Duijn. “Supplementation of ketone bodies, branched-chain amino and omega-3 fatty acids may help support brain function.”

The fact that ketone bodies were positively associated with the risk of dementia is “a very important finding,” she said.

Following this and other presentations, session cochair Rima Kaddurah-Daouk, PhD, professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted the research is “an important part of trying to decipher some of the mysteries in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The research contributes to the understanding of how nutrition and diet could influence metabolism and then the brain and is “opening the horizon” for thinking about “strategies for therapeutic interventions,” she said.

The study received funding support from the National Institute on Aging. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have identified clusters of blood-based metabolites, molecules produced by cells during metabolism, that appear to predict subsequent dementia risk in new findings that may provide a prevention target.

Investigators found one of the clusters includes small high-density lipoprotein (HDL) metabolites associated with vascular dementia, while another cluster involves ketone bodies and citrate that are primarily associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Ketone bodies, or ketones, are three related compounds – acetone, acetoacetic acid, and beta-hydroxybutyric acid (BHB) – produced by the liver during fat metabolism. Citrate is a salt or ester of citric acid.

Weight loss before dementia explained?

For the study, investigators included 125,000 patients from the UK Biobank, which includes 51,031 who were over age 60 at baseline. Of these, 1,188 developed dementia during a follow-up of about 10 years; 553 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and 298 with vascular dementia.

Researchers used a platform that covers 249 metabolic measures, including small molecules, fatty acids, and lipoprotein lipids.

They estimated risk associated with these metabolites, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, technical variables, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, education, metabolic and neuropsychiatric medication, and APOE4 genotypes.

Of the 249 metabolites, 47 (19%) were associated with dementia risk in those over age 60, after adjustment.

The investigators examined effect estimates for associations of metabolites with both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia over age 60 versus hippocampal volume under age 60. They found a “very strong, very significant” association for Alzheimer’s disease, and a “marginally significant” association for vascular dementia, said Dr. van Duijn.

This would be expected, as there is a much stronger correlation between hippocampal and Alzheimer’s disease versus vascular dementia, she added.

“We not only see that the metabolites predict dementia, but also early pathology. This makes these findings rather interesting for targeting prevention,” she said. An analysis of total brain volume showed “very strong, very similar, very significant associations” for both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia,” added Dr. van Duijn.

The researchers found a major shift in various metabolites involved in energy metabolism in the 10-year period before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. These changes include low levels of branched-chain amino acids and omega-3 fatty acids and high levels of glucose, citrate, acetone, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and acetate. “This finding is in line with that in APOE models that show reduced energy metabolism over age in the brain,” said Dr. van Duijn.

She added that high levels of some of these metabolites are associated with low body weight before dementia onset, which may explain the weight loss seen in patients before developing the disease. “Our hypothesis is that the liver is burning the fat reserves of the patients in order to provide the brain with fuel,” she explained.
 

Diet a prevention target?

The results also showed ketone bodies increase with age, which may represent the aging brain’s “compensation mechanism” to deal with an energy shortage, said Dr. van Duijn. “Supplementation of ketone bodies, branched-chain amino and omega-3 fatty acids may help support brain function.”

The fact that ketone bodies were positively associated with the risk of dementia is “a very important finding,” she said.

Following this and other presentations, session cochair Rima Kaddurah-Daouk, PhD, professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted the research is “an important part of trying to decipher some of the mysteries in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The research contributes to the understanding of how nutrition and diet could influence metabolism and then the brain and is “opening the horizon” for thinking about “strategies for therapeutic interventions,” she said.

The study received funding support from the National Institute on Aging. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent condition that is associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health care utilization. Use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure caused by COPD exacerbations is well established. However, the benefits of in-home NIPPV for COPD with chronic hypercapnia is unclear.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Multicenter catchment of 21 randomized control trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies involving more than 51,000 patients during 1995-2019.

Synopsis: Patients included were those with COPD and hypercapnia who used NIPPV for more than 1 month. Home bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), compared to no device use was associated with lower risk of mortality, all-cause hospital admission, and intubation, but no significant difference in quality of life. Noninvasive home mechanical ventilation, compared with no device was significantly associated with lower risk of hospital admission, but not a significant difference in mortality. Of note, there was no statistically significant difference in any outcome for either BiPAP or home mechanical ventilation if evidence was limited to RCTs. Importantly, on rigorous measure, the evidence was low to moderate quality or insufficient, and some outcomes analysis was based on small numbers of studies.

Bottom line: While there is suggestion of benefit on some measures with the use of home NIPPV, the evidence is not robust enough to clearly guide use.

Citation: Wilson et al. Association of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4;323(5):455-65.

Dr. Sneed is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent condition that is associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health care utilization. Use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure caused by COPD exacerbations is well established. However, the benefits of in-home NIPPV for COPD with chronic hypercapnia is unclear.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Multicenter catchment of 21 randomized control trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies involving more than 51,000 patients during 1995-2019.

Synopsis: Patients included were those with COPD and hypercapnia who used NIPPV for more than 1 month. Home bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), compared to no device use was associated with lower risk of mortality, all-cause hospital admission, and intubation, but no significant difference in quality of life. Noninvasive home mechanical ventilation, compared with no device was significantly associated with lower risk of hospital admission, but not a significant difference in mortality. Of note, there was no statistically significant difference in any outcome for either BiPAP or home mechanical ventilation if evidence was limited to RCTs. Importantly, on rigorous measure, the evidence was low to moderate quality or insufficient, and some outcomes analysis was based on small numbers of studies.

Bottom line: While there is suggestion of benefit on some measures with the use of home NIPPV, the evidence is not robust enough to clearly guide use.

Citation: Wilson et al. Association of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4;323(5):455-65.

Dr. Sneed is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent condition that is associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health care utilization. Use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure caused by COPD exacerbations is well established. However, the benefits of in-home NIPPV for COPD with chronic hypercapnia is unclear.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Multicenter catchment of 21 randomized control trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies involving more than 51,000 patients during 1995-2019.

Synopsis: Patients included were those with COPD and hypercapnia who used NIPPV for more than 1 month. Home bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), compared to no device use was associated with lower risk of mortality, all-cause hospital admission, and intubation, but no significant difference in quality of life. Noninvasive home mechanical ventilation, compared with no device was significantly associated with lower risk of hospital admission, but not a significant difference in mortality. Of note, there was no statistically significant difference in any outcome for either BiPAP or home mechanical ventilation if evidence was limited to RCTs. Importantly, on rigorous measure, the evidence was low to moderate quality or insufficient, and some outcomes analysis was based on small numbers of studies.

Bottom line: While there is suggestion of benefit on some measures with the use of home NIPPV, the evidence is not robust enough to clearly guide use.

Citation: Wilson et al. Association of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4;323(5):455-65.

Dr. Sneed is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Around the world, cases of dementia are projected to hit 153 million in 2050, up from around 57 million in 2019, new global prevalence data show. “These extreme increases are due largely to demographic trends, including population growth and aging,” said study investigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Our estimates of expected increases can and should inform policy and planning efforts that will be needed to address the needs of the growing number of individuals with dementia in the future,” Ms. Nichols said.

The latest global prevalence data were reported at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“The numbers are staggering: Nearly 153 million cases of dementia are predicted worldwide by the year 2050. To put that in context, that number is equal to approximately half of the U.S. population in 2020,” Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.
 

Prevalence by country

To more accurately forecast global dementia prevalence and produce country-level estimates, the investigators leveraged data from 1999 to 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease study, a comprehensive set of estimates of worldwide health trends.

These data suggest global dementia cases will increase from 57.4 million (50.4 to 65.1) in 2019 to 152.8 million (130.8 to 175.9) in 2050.

Regions that will experience the worst of the increase are eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East.

The researchers also factored into the forecasts expected trends in obesity, diabetes, smoking, and educational attainment.

Increases in better education around the world are projected to decrease dementia prevalence by 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, anticipated trends in smoking, high body mass index, and diabetes will offset this gain, increasing global dementia cases by 6.8 million cases.

“A reversal of these expected trends in cardiovascular risks would be necessary to alter the anticipated trends,” Ms. Nichols said. “Interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors for dementia represent a viable strategy to help address the anticipated trends in dementia burden,” she added.
 

Need for effective prevention, treatment

Commenting on the research, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the global increase in dementia cases is something the association has been following for many years. “We know that if we do not find effective treatments that are going to stop, slow, or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, this number will continue to grow and it will continue to impact people globally,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

She noted that although there are some positive trends, including the fact that increased education may drive down dementia risk, other factors, such as smoking, high body mass index, and high blood sugar level, are predicted to increase in prevalence.

“Some of these factors are actually counterbalancing each other, and in the end, if we don’t continue to develop culturally tailored interventions or even risk reduction strategies for individuals across the globe, we will continue to see those numbers rise overall,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

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

Around the world, cases of dementia are projected to hit 153 million in 2050, up from around 57 million in 2019, new global prevalence data show. “These extreme increases are due largely to demographic trends, including population growth and aging,” said study investigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Our estimates of expected increases can and should inform policy and planning efforts that will be needed to address the needs of the growing number of individuals with dementia in the future,” Ms. Nichols said.

The latest global prevalence data were reported at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“The numbers are staggering: Nearly 153 million cases of dementia are predicted worldwide by the year 2050. To put that in context, that number is equal to approximately half of the U.S. population in 2020,” Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.
 

Prevalence by country

To more accurately forecast global dementia prevalence and produce country-level estimates, the investigators leveraged data from 1999 to 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease study, a comprehensive set of estimates of worldwide health trends.

These data suggest global dementia cases will increase from 57.4 million (50.4 to 65.1) in 2019 to 152.8 million (130.8 to 175.9) in 2050.

Regions that will experience the worst of the increase are eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East.

The researchers also factored into the forecasts expected trends in obesity, diabetes, smoking, and educational attainment.

Increases in better education around the world are projected to decrease dementia prevalence by 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, anticipated trends in smoking, high body mass index, and diabetes will offset this gain, increasing global dementia cases by 6.8 million cases.

“A reversal of these expected trends in cardiovascular risks would be necessary to alter the anticipated trends,” Ms. Nichols said. “Interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors for dementia represent a viable strategy to help address the anticipated trends in dementia burden,” she added.
 

Need for effective prevention, treatment

Commenting on the research, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the global increase in dementia cases is something the association has been following for many years. “We know that if we do not find effective treatments that are going to stop, slow, or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, this number will continue to grow and it will continue to impact people globally,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

She noted that although there are some positive trends, including the fact that increased education may drive down dementia risk, other factors, such as smoking, high body mass index, and high blood sugar level, are predicted to increase in prevalence.

“Some of these factors are actually counterbalancing each other, and in the end, if we don’t continue to develop culturally tailored interventions or even risk reduction strategies for individuals across the globe, we will continue to see those numbers rise overall,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

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

Around the world, cases of dementia are projected to hit 153 million in 2050, up from around 57 million in 2019, new global prevalence data show. “These extreme increases are due largely to demographic trends, including population growth and aging,” said study investigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Our estimates of expected increases can and should inform policy and planning efforts that will be needed to address the needs of the growing number of individuals with dementia in the future,” Ms. Nichols said.

The latest global prevalence data were reported at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“The numbers are staggering: Nearly 153 million cases of dementia are predicted worldwide by the year 2050. To put that in context, that number is equal to approximately half of the U.S. population in 2020,” Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.
 

Prevalence by country

To more accurately forecast global dementia prevalence and produce country-level estimates, the investigators leveraged data from 1999 to 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease study, a comprehensive set of estimates of worldwide health trends.

These data suggest global dementia cases will increase from 57.4 million (50.4 to 65.1) in 2019 to 152.8 million (130.8 to 175.9) in 2050.

Regions that will experience the worst of the increase are eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East.

The researchers also factored into the forecasts expected trends in obesity, diabetes, smoking, and educational attainment.

Increases in better education around the world are projected to decrease dementia prevalence by 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, anticipated trends in smoking, high body mass index, and diabetes will offset this gain, increasing global dementia cases by 6.8 million cases.

“A reversal of these expected trends in cardiovascular risks would be necessary to alter the anticipated trends,” Ms. Nichols said. “Interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors for dementia represent a viable strategy to help address the anticipated trends in dementia burden,” she added.
 

Need for effective prevention, treatment

Commenting on the research, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the global increase in dementia cases is something the association has been following for many years. “We know that if we do not find effective treatments that are going to stop, slow, or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, this number will continue to grow and it will continue to impact people globally,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

She noted that although there are some positive trends, including the fact that increased education may drive down dementia risk, other factors, such as smoking, high body mass index, and high blood sugar level, are predicted to increase in prevalence.

“Some of these factors are actually counterbalancing each other, and in the end, if we don’t continue to develop culturally tailored interventions or even risk reduction strategies for individuals across the globe, we will continue to see those numbers rise overall,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable insulin, Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), which can be substituted for glargine (Lantus, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription.

The approval will allow Semglee to function like a generic drug in the market and may reduce insulin costs.

It is indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Originally approved in June 2020 as a biosimilar to glargine, Semglee is now an “interchangeable biosimilar,” meaning that it has no clinically meaningful difference from the reference product and also may be substituted for that product – in this case, glargine (Lantus) – without prescriber intervention, just as generic drugs typically are, subject to state pharmacy laws.

For approval as an interchangeable biosimilar, manufacturers are required to provide additional data reflecting how the interchangeable biosimilar may be used in the marketplace with patients.

“Biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products have the potential to reduce health care costs, similar to how generic drugs have reduced costs. Biosimilars marketed in the U.S. typically have launched with initial list prices 15% to 35% lower than comparative list prices of the reference products,” the FDA said in a statement.

Semglee comes in 10-mL and 3-mL prefilled pens, and is administered subcutaneously once daily, with individualized doses. The most common side effects are hypoglycemia, edema, lipodystrophy, weight gain, and allergic reactions.

The FDA released new materials for health care providers regarding biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products, including a fact sheet about interchangeable biosimilar products.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable insulin, Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), which can be substituted for glargine (Lantus, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription.

The approval will allow Semglee to function like a generic drug in the market and may reduce insulin costs.

It is indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Originally approved in June 2020 as a biosimilar to glargine, Semglee is now an “interchangeable biosimilar,” meaning that it has no clinically meaningful difference from the reference product and also may be substituted for that product – in this case, glargine (Lantus) – without prescriber intervention, just as generic drugs typically are, subject to state pharmacy laws.

For approval as an interchangeable biosimilar, manufacturers are required to provide additional data reflecting how the interchangeable biosimilar may be used in the marketplace with patients.

“Biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products have the potential to reduce health care costs, similar to how generic drugs have reduced costs. Biosimilars marketed in the U.S. typically have launched with initial list prices 15% to 35% lower than comparative list prices of the reference products,” the FDA said in a statement.

Semglee comes in 10-mL and 3-mL prefilled pens, and is administered subcutaneously once daily, with individualized doses. The most common side effects are hypoglycemia, edema, lipodystrophy, weight gain, and allergic reactions.

The FDA released new materials for health care providers regarding biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products, including a fact sheet about interchangeable biosimilar products.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable insulin, Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), which can be substituted for glargine (Lantus, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription.

The approval will allow Semglee to function like a generic drug in the market and may reduce insulin costs.

It is indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Originally approved in June 2020 as a biosimilar to glargine, Semglee is now an “interchangeable biosimilar,” meaning that it has no clinically meaningful difference from the reference product and also may be substituted for that product – in this case, glargine (Lantus) – without prescriber intervention, just as generic drugs typically are, subject to state pharmacy laws.

For approval as an interchangeable biosimilar, manufacturers are required to provide additional data reflecting how the interchangeable biosimilar may be used in the marketplace with patients.

“Biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products have the potential to reduce health care costs, similar to how generic drugs have reduced costs. Biosimilars marketed in the U.S. typically have launched with initial list prices 15% to 35% lower than comparative list prices of the reference products,” the FDA said in a statement.

Semglee comes in 10-mL and 3-mL prefilled pens, and is administered subcutaneously once daily, with individualized doses. The most common side effects are hypoglycemia, edema, lipodystrophy, weight gain, and allergic reactions.

The FDA released new materials for health care providers regarding biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products, including a fact sheet about interchangeable biosimilar products.

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

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

[email protected]

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

[email protected]

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

[email protected]

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine continues to show strong protection against serious illness and hospitalization after 6 months, but overall protection against the virus appears to wane after a half a year, according to a new study.

The July 28 preprint report of the study, which has not been peer reviewed, suggests a gradual “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” over 6 months after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in more than 45,000 people worldwide.

The study finds overall effectiveness falls from 96% to 84%.

At the same time, a third booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels against the Delta variant by more than five times, compared to levels after just a second dose in people aged 18-55 years, new data from Pfizer shows.

The third-dose immune response appears even more robust – more than 11 times higher than the second shot – among people aged 65-85 years.

The company noted this could mean an estimated 100-fold increase in Delta variant protection after a third dose. These new findings are outlined in a Pfizer second-quarter 2021 earnings report, which notes that the data are submitted for publication in a medical journal.

The data come from a relatively small number of people studied. There were 11 people in the 18- to 55-year-old group and 12 people in the 65- to 85-year-old group.

“These preliminary data are very encouraging as Delta continues to spread,” Mikael Dolsten, MD, chief scientific officer and president of the Worldwide Research, Development, and Medical organization at Pfizer, said during prepared remarks on a company earnings call July 28, CNN reported.

Availability of a third dose of any of the current COVID-19 vaccines would require amendment of the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization, or full FDA approval for the vaccine.

The possibility of a third dose authorization or approval has not been without controversy. For example, when Pfizer announced intentions to file for FDA authorization of a booster dose on July 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health were quick to issue a joint statement saying they would decide when the timing is right for Americans to have a third immunization. The agencies stated, in part, “We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed.”

In addition, the World Health Organization said at a media briefing on July 12 that rich countries should prioritize sharing of COVID-19 vaccine supplies to other countries in need worldwide before allocating doses for a booster shot for its own residents.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine continues to show strong protection against serious illness and hospitalization after 6 months, but overall protection against the virus appears to wane after a half a year, according to a new study.

The July 28 preprint report of the study, which has not been peer reviewed, suggests a gradual “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” over 6 months after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in more than 45,000 people worldwide.

The study finds overall effectiveness falls from 96% to 84%.

At the same time, a third booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels against the Delta variant by more than five times, compared to levels after just a second dose in people aged 18-55 years, new data from Pfizer shows.

The third-dose immune response appears even more robust – more than 11 times higher than the second shot – among people aged 65-85 years.

The company noted this could mean an estimated 100-fold increase in Delta variant protection after a third dose. These new findings are outlined in a Pfizer second-quarter 2021 earnings report, which notes that the data are submitted for publication in a medical journal.

The data come from a relatively small number of people studied. There were 11 people in the 18- to 55-year-old group and 12 people in the 65- to 85-year-old group.

“These preliminary data are very encouraging as Delta continues to spread,” Mikael Dolsten, MD, chief scientific officer and president of the Worldwide Research, Development, and Medical organization at Pfizer, said during prepared remarks on a company earnings call July 28, CNN reported.

Availability of a third dose of any of the current COVID-19 vaccines would require amendment of the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization, or full FDA approval for the vaccine.

The possibility of a third dose authorization or approval has not been without controversy. For example, when Pfizer announced intentions to file for FDA authorization of a booster dose on July 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health were quick to issue a joint statement saying they would decide when the timing is right for Americans to have a third immunization. The agencies stated, in part, “We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed.”

In addition, the World Health Organization said at a media briefing on July 12 that rich countries should prioritize sharing of COVID-19 vaccine supplies to other countries in need worldwide before allocating doses for a booster shot for its own residents.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine continues to show strong protection against serious illness and hospitalization after 6 months, but overall protection against the virus appears to wane after a half a year, according to a new study.

The July 28 preprint report of the study, which has not been peer reviewed, suggests a gradual “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” over 6 months after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in more than 45,000 people worldwide.

The study finds overall effectiveness falls from 96% to 84%.

At the same time, a third booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels against the Delta variant by more than five times, compared to levels after just a second dose in people aged 18-55 years, new data from Pfizer shows.

The third-dose immune response appears even more robust – more than 11 times higher than the second shot – among people aged 65-85 years.

The company noted this could mean an estimated 100-fold increase in Delta variant protection after a third dose. These new findings are outlined in a Pfizer second-quarter 2021 earnings report, which notes that the data are submitted for publication in a medical journal.

The data come from a relatively small number of people studied. There were 11 people in the 18- to 55-year-old group and 12 people in the 65- to 85-year-old group.

“These preliminary data are very encouraging as Delta continues to spread,” Mikael Dolsten, MD, chief scientific officer and president of the Worldwide Research, Development, and Medical organization at Pfizer, said during prepared remarks on a company earnings call July 28, CNN reported.

Availability of a third dose of any of the current COVID-19 vaccines would require amendment of the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization, or full FDA approval for the vaccine.

The possibility of a third dose authorization or approval has not been without controversy. For example, when Pfizer announced intentions to file for FDA authorization of a booster dose on July 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health were quick to issue a joint statement saying they would decide when the timing is right for Americans to have a third immunization. The agencies stated, in part, “We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed.”

In addition, the World Health Organization said at a media briefing on July 12 that rich countries should prioritize sharing of COVID-19 vaccine supplies to other countries in need worldwide before allocating doses for a booster shot for its own residents.

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

Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, was No. 1 this year in geriatric care, according to rankings by U.S. News & World Report. The Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., followed.

Rounding out the top 10 hospitals in caring for patients older than age 75 were (4) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles; (5) NYU Langone Hospitals in New York; (6) Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore; (7) New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; (8) Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; (9) UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and (10) Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Those were followed by (11) Keck Medical Center of USC, Los Angeles; (12) University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor; (13) UC San Diego Health–Jacobs Medical Center, San Diego; (14) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; (15) Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.; (16) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago; (17) Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia; (18) Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; (19) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Mo.; (tied for 19) UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh.

Data for the 2021-2022 edition of the “Best Hospitals” were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

U.S. News also investigated racial disparities in health care and debuted health equity measures alongside each hospital’s rankings. Among other aspects of health equity, the new measures examine whether the patients each hospital treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of its community.

Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a statement, “At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery, and common heart procedures. Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents.”

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again No. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release. The Cleveland Clinic ranked No. 2, followed by UCLA Medical Center at No. 3.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston ranked No. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the website.

In 12 of the 15 specialty areas, including geriatrics, rankings are derived from data sources such as Medicare. In the other three specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – ranking is determined by expert opinion based on responses from 3 years of surveys of physician specialists who were asked to name the hospitals to which they would likely refer their sickest patients.

This year’s analysis adds seven new procedures and conditions: Heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, diabetes, kidney failure, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion).

The expanded list will help patients, in consultation with their physicians, choose their hospital on the basis of the specific type of care they need with consideration of distance to a facility and insurance coverage.

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

Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, was No. 1 this year in geriatric care, according to rankings by U.S. News & World Report. The Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., followed.

Rounding out the top 10 hospitals in caring for patients older than age 75 were (4) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles; (5) NYU Langone Hospitals in New York; (6) Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore; (7) New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; (8) Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; (9) UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and (10) Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Those were followed by (11) Keck Medical Center of USC, Los Angeles; (12) University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor; (13) UC San Diego Health–Jacobs Medical Center, San Diego; (14) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; (15) Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.; (16) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago; (17) Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia; (18) Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; (19) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Mo.; (tied for 19) UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh.

Data for the 2021-2022 edition of the “Best Hospitals” were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

U.S. News also investigated racial disparities in health care and debuted health equity measures alongside each hospital’s rankings. Among other aspects of health equity, the new measures examine whether the patients each hospital treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of its community.

Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a statement, “At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery, and common heart procedures. Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents.”

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again No. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release. The Cleveland Clinic ranked No. 2, followed by UCLA Medical Center at No. 3.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston ranked No. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the website.

In 12 of the 15 specialty areas, including geriatrics, rankings are derived from data sources such as Medicare. In the other three specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – ranking is determined by expert opinion based on responses from 3 years of surveys of physician specialists who were asked to name the hospitals to which they would likely refer their sickest patients.

This year’s analysis adds seven new procedures and conditions: Heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, diabetes, kidney failure, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion).

The expanded list will help patients, in consultation with their physicians, choose their hospital on the basis of the specific type of care they need with consideration of distance to a facility and insurance coverage.

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

Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, was No. 1 this year in geriatric care, according to rankings by U.S. News & World Report. The Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., followed.

Rounding out the top 10 hospitals in caring for patients older than age 75 were (4) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles; (5) NYU Langone Hospitals in New York; (6) Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore; (7) New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; (8) Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; (9) UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and (10) Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Those were followed by (11) Keck Medical Center of USC, Los Angeles; (12) University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor; (13) UC San Diego Health–Jacobs Medical Center, San Diego; (14) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; (15) Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.; (16) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago; (17) Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia; (18) Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; (19) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Mo.; (tied for 19) UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh.

Data for the 2021-2022 edition of the “Best Hospitals” were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

U.S. News also investigated racial disparities in health care and debuted health equity measures alongside each hospital’s rankings. Among other aspects of health equity, the new measures examine whether the patients each hospital treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of its community.

Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a statement, “At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery, and common heart procedures. Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents.”

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again No. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release. The Cleveland Clinic ranked No. 2, followed by UCLA Medical Center at No. 3.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston ranked No. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the website.

In 12 of the 15 specialty areas, including geriatrics, rankings are derived from data sources such as Medicare. In the other three specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – ranking is determined by expert opinion based on responses from 3 years of surveys of physician specialists who were asked to name the hospitals to which they would likely refer their sickest patients.

This year’s analysis adds seven new procedures and conditions: Heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, diabetes, kidney failure, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion).

The expanded list will help patients, in consultation with their physicians, choose their hospital on the basis of the specific type of care they need with consideration of distance to a facility and insurance coverage.

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