Endocrinology

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Evidence from three studies in sports cardiology presented at ACC 2023 piqued my interest. Not only because I love endurance sport but because the studies reported data that upset prevailing ideas.

LIVE HCM: Surprising result No. 1

Rachel Lampert, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented results of the LIVE-HCM observational study of vigorous exercise in more than 1,600 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (40% female). The investigators aimed to determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise, including competitive sports, is associated with increased risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia and/or mortality in patients with HCM.

Because of the myocardial disease, HCM comes with a risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Prevailing wisdom held that vigorous exercise in these patients would be hazardous. It was all expert opinion; there were no data. Now there are.

Dr. Lampert and colleagues recruited patients from 42 international HCM centers. Patients self-enrolled and the researchers created three groups based on self-reported levels of exercise – vigorous, moderate, and sedentary. The main comparison was between vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers (including moderate and sedentary). The two groups were mostly matched on baseline characteristics and typical of patients with HCM.

The primary endpoint was a composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, syncope likely caused by an arrhythmia, or an appropriate shock from an ICD.

The event rates were low in all groups and almost identical in vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers. Sub-group analyses found no increased risk in HCM patients who identified as competitive athletes.

Dr. Lampert said these data “do not support universal restriction of vigorous exercise in patients with HCM.”
 

Return to play: Surprising result No. 2

Undergraduate student Katherine Martinez from Loyola University, Chicago, presented an observational analysis of 76 elite athletes with genetic heart disease who gained a return-to-play approval from four expert centers in the United States.

The three-step, return-to-play protocol from these specialized centers deserves emphasis. First was the initial evaluation, including two ECGs, 24-hour ECG monitor, echocardiography, and treadmill exercise testing. Second was a discussion between clinicians and patients regarding the athlete’s situation. The third step was to inform coaches and staff of the team and instruct athletes to obtain a personal AED, stay replenished with electrolytes, avoid QT-prolonging drugs, and continue with annual follow-up.

Slightly more than half of these patients had HCM and almost a third had long QT syndrome. Nearly one-third had an ICD implant and 22 were women.

Of the 76 athletes, 73 chose to return to play; however, 4 of these remained disqualified because of their team’s decision. Of the remaining 69, only 3 had one or more breakthrough cardiac events during 200 patient-years of follow-up.

These comprised one male Division I basketball player with HCM who had an ICD shock while moving furniture; another male Division 1 hockey player with long QT syndrome who was taking beta-blockers experienced syncope while coming off the bench and while cooking; and a third male professional hockey player with HCM, on beta-blockers, had syncope without exertion.

The authors concluded that when there was careful evaluation by experts and shared decision-making, a specific plan to return to sport can be put into place for the highest-level athletes.
 

Masters@Heart: Surprising result No. 3

Ruben De Bosscher MD, PhD, from KU Leuven (Belgium), presented the Masters@Heart study on behalf of a Belgian team of researchers. The question they asked was whether lifelong endurance exercise is associated with more coronary atherosclerosis than standard “normal” exercise levels.

That question brings up the paradox of exercise, which is that numerous observational studies find that exercise strongly associates with lower rates of cardiovascular events, but imaging studies also report high rates of coronary artery calcium in endurance athletes, especially in those who have run multiple marathons.

Masters@Heart investigators sought to explore this paradox by performing detailed coronary imaging in three groups – lifelong athletes, late-onset athletes (after age 30 years), and super-healthy controls. Through advertisements they obtained about 1,100 middle-aged male volunteers (mean age, 55 years). Of these, 605 men were selected at random to participate to reduce the chance of enrolling people who responded to the ads because of health concerns.

Investigators assigned those selected based on self-report of exercise. The control group was notable for their good health: they were free of any risk factors, took (almost) no meds, exercised regularly but not excessively (about 3 hours per week) and had a VO₂ max of 122% of predicted.

The groups were well matched on baseline characteristics. Cycling predominated as the exercise of choice (this is a Belgian study after all). All patients had an extensive evaluation including coronary CT imaging.

European Heart Journal published the provocative results.

• Lifelong exercisers had a significantly higher CAC burden than controls, which confirms previous work.
• Lifelong exercisers had a higher percentage of multiple coronary plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• There were no significant differences in the mixture of plaque types in the three groups. About two thirds of the plaques in each group were calcified and the remainder were deemed noncalcified or mixed.
• When looking only at noncalcified plaques, lifelong exercisers tended to have a higher prevalence of multiple plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• So named “vulnerable” plaques were extremely infrequent in all three groups.

The authors concluded that lifelong endurance sport relative to a generic healthy lifestyle was not associated with more favorable coronary plaque composition.
 

Comments

Each of these three studies provided data where there was none. That is always a good thing.

The major theme from the first two studies is that expert opinion was too cautious. Doctors have long held the idea that patients with genetic heart disease, especially hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, are vulnerable, fragile even, when it comes to vigorous sport.

This new evidence upends this belief, as long as return to sport occurs in the setting of robust patient education and expert evaluation and surveillance.

Paternalism in prohibiting participation in sport because of genetic heart disease has joined the long list of medical reversals.

Masters@Heart provides a slightly different message. It finds that lifelong high-level exercise does not prevent coronary atherosclerosis in men. And, more provocatively, if replicated, might even show that long-term exposure to the biochemical, inflammatory, or hormonal effects of endurance training may actually be atherogenic. Like all good science, these findings raise more questions to explore in the realm of atherogenesis.

Two of the main limitations of the Belgian study was that the control arm was quite healthy; had the comparison arm been typical of sedentary controls in say, the Southeastern United States, the coronary lesions found in longtime exercisers may have looked more favorable. The more significant limitation is the lack of outcomes. Images of coronary arteries remain a surrogate marker. It’s possible that, like statins, higher levels of exercise may stabilize plaque and actually lower the risk for events.

The Belgian authors suggest – as many have – a J-curve of exercise benefits, wherein too little exercise is clearly bad, but too much exercise may also increase risk. In other words, for maximizing health, there may be a Goldilocks amount of exercise.

The problem with this idea comes in its pragmatic translation. The number of lifelong high-level, middle-aged endurance athletes that cite heart health reasons for their affliction is ... almost zero. Nearly everyone I have met in the endurance sport fraternity harbors no notion that racing a bike or running multiple marathons per year is a healthy endeavor.

Paternalism, therefore, would also fall in the realm of limiting lifelong exercise in addicted middle-aged athletes.

Via email, sports cardiologist Michael Emery, MD, reiterated the main immediate message from Masters@Heart: “Exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear honestly).”

I for one cannot give up on endurance exercise. I won’t likely race anymore but I am like the lab rat who needs to run on the wheel. Whether this affects my coronary plaque burden matters not to me.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Evidence from three studies in sports cardiology presented at ACC 2023 piqued my interest. Not only because I love endurance sport but because the studies reported data that upset prevailing ideas.

LIVE HCM: Surprising result No. 1

Rachel Lampert, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented results of the LIVE-HCM observational study of vigorous exercise in more than 1,600 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (40% female). The investigators aimed to determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise, including competitive sports, is associated with increased risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia and/or mortality in patients with HCM.

Because of the myocardial disease, HCM comes with a risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Prevailing wisdom held that vigorous exercise in these patients would be hazardous. It was all expert opinion; there were no data. Now there are.

Dr. Lampert and colleagues recruited patients from 42 international HCM centers. Patients self-enrolled and the researchers created three groups based on self-reported levels of exercise – vigorous, moderate, and sedentary. The main comparison was between vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers (including moderate and sedentary). The two groups were mostly matched on baseline characteristics and typical of patients with HCM.

The primary endpoint was a composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, syncope likely caused by an arrhythmia, or an appropriate shock from an ICD.

The event rates were low in all groups and almost identical in vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers. Sub-group analyses found no increased risk in HCM patients who identified as competitive athletes.

Dr. Lampert said these data “do not support universal restriction of vigorous exercise in patients with HCM.”
 

Return to play: Surprising result No. 2

Undergraduate student Katherine Martinez from Loyola University, Chicago, presented an observational analysis of 76 elite athletes with genetic heart disease who gained a return-to-play approval from four expert centers in the United States.

The three-step, return-to-play protocol from these specialized centers deserves emphasis. First was the initial evaluation, including two ECGs, 24-hour ECG monitor, echocardiography, and treadmill exercise testing. Second was a discussion between clinicians and patients regarding the athlete’s situation. The third step was to inform coaches and staff of the team and instruct athletes to obtain a personal AED, stay replenished with electrolytes, avoid QT-prolonging drugs, and continue with annual follow-up.

Slightly more than half of these patients had HCM and almost a third had long QT syndrome. Nearly one-third had an ICD implant and 22 were women.

Of the 76 athletes, 73 chose to return to play; however, 4 of these remained disqualified because of their team’s decision. Of the remaining 69, only 3 had one or more breakthrough cardiac events during 200 patient-years of follow-up.

These comprised one male Division I basketball player with HCM who had an ICD shock while moving furniture; another male Division 1 hockey player with long QT syndrome who was taking beta-blockers experienced syncope while coming off the bench and while cooking; and a third male professional hockey player with HCM, on beta-blockers, had syncope without exertion.

The authors concluded that when there was careful evaluation by experts and shared decision-making, a specific plan to return to sport can be put into place for the highest-level athletes.
 

Masters@Heart: Surprising result No. 3

Ruben De Bosscher MD, PhD, from KU Leuven (Belgium), presented the Masters@Heart study on behalf of a Belgian team of researchers. The question they asked was whether lifelong endurance exercise is associated with more coronary atherosclerosis than standard “normal” exercise levels.

That question brings up the paradox of exercise, which is that numerous observational studies find that exercise strongly associates with lower rates of cardiovascular events, but imaging studies also report high rates of coronary artery calcium in endurance athletes, especially in those who have run multiple marathons.

Masters@Heart investigators sought to explore this paradox by performing detailed coronary imaging in three groups – lifelong athletes, late-onset athletes (after age 30 years), and super-healthy controls. Through advertisements they obtained about 1,100 middle-aged male volunteers (mean age, 55 years). Of these, 605 men were selected at random to participate to reduce the chance of enrolling people who responded to the ads because of health concerns.

Investigators assigned those selected based on self-report of exercise. The control group was notable for their good health: they were free of any risk factors, took (almost) no meds, exercised regularly but not excessively (about 3 hours per week) and had a VO₂ max of 122% of predicted.

The groups were well matched on baseline characteristics. Cycling predominated as the exercise of choice (this is a Belgian study after all). All patients had an extensive evaluation including coronary CT imaging.

European Heart Journal published the provocative results.

• Lifelong exercisers had a significantly higher CAC burden than controls, which confirms previous work.
• Lifelong exercisers had a higher percentage of multiple coronary plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• There were no significant differences in the mixture of plaque types in the three groups. About two thirds of the plaques in each group were calcified and the remainder were deemed noncalcified or mixed.
• When looking only at noncalcified plaques, lifelong exercisers tended to have a higher prevalence of multiple plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• So named “vulnerable” plaques were extremely infrequent in all three groups.

The authors concluded that lifelong endurance sport relative to a generic healthy lifestyle was not associated with more favorable coronary plaque composition.
 

Comments

Each of these three studies provided data where there was none. That is always a good thing.

The major theme from the first two studies is that expert opinion was too cautious. Doctors have long held the idea that patients with genetic heart disease, especially hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, are vulnerable, fragile even, when it comes to vigorous sport.

This new evidence upends this belief, as long as return to sport occurs in the setting of robust patient education and expert evaluation and surveillance.

Paternalism in prohibiting participation in sport because of genetic heart disease has joined the long list of medical reversals.

Masters@Heart provides a slightly different message. It finds that lifelong high-level exercise does not prevent coronary atherosclerosis in men. And, more provocatively, if replicated, might even show that long-term exposure to the biochemical, inflammatory, or hormonal effects of endurance training may actually be atherogenic. Like all good science, these findings raise more questions to explore in the realm of atherogenesis.

Two of the main limitations of the Belgian study was that the control arm was quite healthy; had the comparison arm been typical of sedentary controls in say, the Southeastern United States, the coronary lesions found in longtime exercisers may have looked more favorable. The more significant limitation is the lack of outcomes. Images of coronary arteries remain a surrogate marker. It’s possible that, like statins, higher levels of exercise may stabilize plaque and actually lower the risk for events.

The Belgian authors suggest – as many have – a J-curve of exercise benefits, wherein too little exercise is clearly bad, but too much exercise may also increase risk. In other words, for maximizing health, there may be a Goldilocks amount of exercise.

The problem with this idea comes in its pragmatic translation. The number of lifelong high-level, middle-aged endurance athletes that cite heart health reasons for their affliction is ... almost zero. Nearly everyone I have met in the endurance sport fraternity harbors no notion that racing a bike or running multiple marathons per year is a healthy endeavor.

Paternalism, therefore, would also fall in the realm of limiting lifelong exercise in addicted middle-aged athletes.

Via email, sports cardiologist Michael Emery, MD, reiterated the main immediate message from Masters@Heart: “Exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear honestly).”

I for one cannot give up on endurance exercise. I won’t likely race anymore but I am like the lab rat who needs to run on the wheel. Whether this affects my coronary plaque burden matters not to me.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Evidence from three studies in sports cardiology presented at ACC 2023 piqued my interest. Not only because I love endurance sport but because the studies reported data that upset prevailing ideas.

LIVE HCM: Surprising result No. 1

Rachel Lampert, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented results of the LIVE-HCM observational study of vigorous exercise in more than 1,600 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (40% female). The investigators aimed to determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise, including competitive sports, is associated with increased risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia and/or mortality in patients with HCM.

Because of the myocardial disease, HCM comes with a risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Prevailing wisdom held that vigorous exercise in these patients would be hazardous. It was all expert opinion; there were no data. Now there are.

Dr. Lampert and colleagues recruited patients from 42 international HCM centers. Patients self-enrolled and the researchers created three groups based on self-reported levels of exercise – vigorous, moderate, and sedentary. The main comparison was between vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers (including moderate and sedentary). The two groups were mostly matched on baseline characteristics and typical of patients with HCM.

The primary endpoint was a composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, syncope likely caused by an arrhythmia, or an appropriate shock from an ICD.

The event rates were low in all groups and almost identical in vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers. Sub-group analyses found no increased risk in HCM patients who identified as competitive athletes.

Dr. Lampert said these data “do not support universal restriction of vigorous exercise in patients with HCM.”
 

Return to play: Surprising result No. 2

Undergraduate student Katherine Martinez from Loyola University, Chicago, presented an observational analysis of 76 elite athletes with genetic heart disease who gained a return-to-play approval from four expert centers in the United States.

The three-step, return-to-play protocol from these specialized centers deserves emphasis. First was the initial evaluation, including two ECGs, 24-hour ECG monitor, echocardiography, and treadmill exercise testing. Second was a discussion between clinicians and patients regarding the athlete’s situation. The third step was to inform coaches and staff of the team and instruct athletes to obtain a personal AED, stay replenished with electrolytes, avoid QT-prolonging drugs, and continue with annual follow-up.

Slightly more than half of these patients had HCM and almost a third had long QT syndrome. Nearly one-third had an ICD implant and 22 were women.

Of the 76 athletes, 73 chose to return to play; however, 4 of these remained disqualified because of their team’s decision. Of the remaining 69, only 3 had one or more breakthrough cardiac events during 200 patient-years of follow-up.

These comprised one male Division I basketball player with HCM who had an ICD shock while moving furniture; another male Division 1 hockey player with long QT syndrome who was taking beta-blockers experienced syncope while coming off the bench and while cooking; and a third male professional hockey player with HCM, on beta-blockers, had syncope without exertion.

The authors concluded that when there was careful evaluation by experts and shared decision-making, a specific plan to return to sport can be put into place for the highest-level athletes.
 

Masters@Heart: Surprising result No. 3

Ruben De Bosscher MD, PhD, from KU Leuven (Belgium), presented the Masters@Heart study on behalf of a Belgian team of researchers. The question they asked was whether lifelong endurance exercise is associated with more coronary atherosclerosis than standard “normal” exercise levels.

That question brings up the paradox of exercise, which is that numerous observational studies find that exercise strongly associates with lower rates of cardiovascular events, but imaging studies also report high rates of coronary artery calcium in endurance athletes, especially in those who have run multiple marathons.

Masters@Heart investigators sought to explore this paradox by performing detailed coronary imaging in three groups – lifelong athletes, late-onset athletes (after age 30 years), and super-healthy controls. Through advertisements they obtained about 1,100 middle-aged male volunteers (mean age, 55 years). Of these, 605 men were selected at random to participate to reduce the chance of enrolling people who responded to the ads because of health concerns.

Investigators assigned those selected based on self-report of exercise. The control group was notable for their good health: they were free of any risk factors, took (almost) no meds, exercised regularly but not excessively (about 3 hours per week) and had a VO₂ max of 122% of predicted.

The groups were well matched on baseline characteristics. Cycling predominated as the exercise of choice (this is a Belgian study after all). All patients had an extensive evaluation including coronary CT imaging.

European Heart Journal published the provocative results.

• Lifelong exercisers had a significantly higher CAC burden than controls, which confirms previous work.
• Lifelong exercisers had a higher percentage of multiple coronary plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• There were no significant differences in the mixture of plaque types in the three groups. About two thirds of the plaques in each group were calcified and the remainder were deemed noncalcified or mixed.
• When looking only at noncalcified plaques, lifelong exercisers tended to have a higher prevalence of multiple plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• So named “vulnerable” plaques were extremely infrequent in all three groups.

The authors concluded that lifelong endurance sport relative to a generic healthy lifestyle was not associated with more favorable coronary plaque composition.
 

Comments

Each of these three studies provided data where there was none. That is always a good thing.

The major theme from the first two studies is that expert opinion was too cautious. Doctors have long held the idea that patients with genetic heart disease, especially hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, are vulnerable, fragile even, when it comes to vigorous sport.

This new evidence upends this belief, as long as return to sport occurs in the setting of robust patient education and expert evaluation and surveillance.

Paternalism in prohibiting participation in sport because of genetic heart disease has joined the long list of medical reversals.

Masters@Heart provides a slightly different message. It finds that lifelong high-level exercise does not prevent coronary atherosclerosis in men. And, more provocatively, if replicated, might even show that long-term exposure to the biochemical, inflammatory, or hormonal effects of endurance training may actually be atherogenic. Like all good science, these findings raise more questions to explore in the realm of atherogenesis.

Two of the main limitations of the Belgian study was that the control arm was quite healthy; had the comparison arm been typical of sedentary controls in say, the Southeastern United States, the coronary lesions found in longtime exercisers may have looked more favorable. The more significant limitation is the lack of outcomes. Images of coronary arteries remain a surrogate marker. It’s possible that, like statins, higher levels of exercise may stabilize plaque and actually lower the risk for events.

The Belgian authors suggest – as many have – a J-curve of exercise benefits, wherein too little exercise is clearly bad, but too much exercise may also increase risk. In other words, for maximizing health, there may be a Goldilocks amount of exercise.

The problem with this idea comes in its pragmatic translation. The number of lifelong high-level, middle-aged endurance athletes that cite heart health reasons for their affliction is ... almost zero. Nearly everyone I have met in the endurance sport fraternity harbors no notion that racing a bike or running multiple marathons per year is a healthy endeavor.

Paternalism, therefore, would also fall in the realm of limiting lifelong exercise in addicted middle-aged athletes.

Via email, sports cardiologist Michael Emery, MD, reiterated the main immediate message from Masters@Heart: “Exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear honestly).”

I for one cannot give up on endurance exercise. I won’t likely race anymore but I am like the lab rat who needs to run on the wheel. Whether this affects my coronary plaque burden matters not to me.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Exposure to “forever chemicals” widely used in consumer products disrupts important biological processes in children and young adults, a new study says.

One key finding was that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, hurt thyroid hormone function, which affects growth and metabolism, said the study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. That could leave children vulnerable to numerous diseases later in life, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, the study said.

Another important finding was that the disruption appeared to be caused by a mixture of PFAS, rather than a single chemical of that type.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily over time and persist in water, soil, and the body. They’re used in numerous consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, cosmetics, and water-repellent clothing.

PFAS have previously been linked to a host of health issues, including decreased birth weights and immune system problems. To the study authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate which biological processes are altered by exposure to multiple PFAS, said a news release from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Researchers studied blood samples from 312 children from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk and 137 children from the Southern California Children’s Health Study. All the children had a mixture of common PFAS in their blood, including PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFOA, and PFNA.

“While current interventions have focused on phasing out the use of individual PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA, this research shows why the focus should be on reducing exposure to all PFAS chemicals,” said Leda Chatzi, MD, a professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Chatzi is also one of the study authors.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced a plan to reduce the amount of PFAS released into the air, drinking and ground water, and food supply chain.

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

Exposure to “forever chemicals” widely used in consumer products disrupts important biological processes in children and young adults, a new study says.

One key finding was that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, hurt thyroid hormone function, which affects growth and metabolism, said the study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. That could leave children vulnerable to numerous diseases later in life, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, the study said.

Another important finding was that the disruption appeared to be caused by a mixture of PFAS, rather than a single chemical of that type.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily over time and persist in water, soil, and the body. They’re used in numerous consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, cosmetics, and water-repellent clothing.

PFAS have previously been linked to a host of health issues, including decreased birth weights and immune system problems. To the study authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate which biological processes are altered by exposure to multiple PFAS, said a news release from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Researchers studied blood samples from 312 children from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk and 137 children from the Southern California Children’s Health Study. All the children had a mixture of common PFAS in their blood, including PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFOA, and PFNA.

“While current interventions have focused on phasing out the use of individual PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA, this research shows why the focus should be on reducing exposure to all PFAS chemicals,” said Leda Chatzi, MD, a professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Chatzi is also one of the study authors.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced a plan to reduce the amount of PFAS released into the air, drinking and ground water, and food supply chain.

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

Exposure to “forever chemicals” widely used in consumer products disrupts important biological processes in children and young adults, a new study says.

One key finding was that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, hurt thyroid hormone function, which affects growth and metabolism, said the study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. That could leave children vulnerable to numerous diseases later in life, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, the study said.

Another important finding was that the disruption appeared to be caused by a mixture of PFAS, rather than a single chemical of that type.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily over time and persist in water, soil, and the body. They’re used in numerous consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, cosmetics, and water-repellent clothing.

PFAS have previously been linked to a host of health issues, including decreased birth weights and immune system problems. To the study authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate which biological processes are altered by exposure to multiple PFAS, said a news release from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Researchers studied blood samples from 312 children from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk and 137 children from the Southern California Children’s Health Study. All the children had a mixture of common PFAS in their blood, including PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFOA, and PFNA.

“While current interventions have focused on phasing out the use of individual PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA, this research shows why the focus should be on reducing exposure to all PFAS chemicals,” said Leda Chatzi, MD, a professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Chatzi is also one of the study authors.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced a plan to reduce the amount of PFAS released into the air, drinking and ground water, and food supply chain.

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

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.

While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.

Overview of online resources and navigating coverage

The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.

The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.

“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”

To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.

Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.

Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.

Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.

When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.

Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.

“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”

Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
 

Learning CGM through first-hand experience

Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.

“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”

Courtesy Dr. Neil Skolnik

Encouraging patients to start CGM

Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.

“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.

Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.

“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”

Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.

While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.

Overview of online resources and navigating coverage

The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.

The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.

“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”

To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.

Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.

Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.

Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.

When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.

Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.

“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”

Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
 

Learning CGM through first-hand experience

Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.

“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”

Courtesy Dr. Neil Skolnik

Encouraging patients to start CGM

Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.

“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.

Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.

“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”

Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.

While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.

Overview of online resources and navigating coverage

The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.

The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.

“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”

To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.

Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.

Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.

Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.

When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.

Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.

“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”

Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
 

Learning CGM through first-hand experience

Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.

“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”

Courtesy Dr. Neil Skolnik

Encouraging patients to start CGM

Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.

“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.

Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.

“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”

Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.