Endocrinology

The Food and Drug Administration has recommended thyroid monitoring for newborns and children through 3 years of age within 3 weeks of receiving injections of iodine-containing contrast media as part of imaging procedures.

A recent FDA review showed that “underactive thyroid or a temporary decrease in thyroid hormone levels were uncommon,” according to an updated Drug Safety Communication issued on March 30, 2022.

However, early monitoring will help identify and treat any thyroid abnormalities as a result of the injections to help prevent potential complications in the future, according to the FDA, as babies and children do not generally show visible signs of thyroid problems and may not do so after an iodinated contrast media (ICM) injection.

ICM have been approved and used for decades to enhance images on x-rays or computed tomography (CT) scans, according to the communication.

The new FDA warning and recommendation for monitoring applies to the prescribing information for the entire class of ICM products. The new communication is an update to the 2015 Drug Safety Communication that advised medical professionals of the potential for underactive thyroid in response to ICM injections in newborns and young children. The update reflects new studies since that time.

The recent research showed that most reported cases of adverse effects were transient subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment, according to the FDA. “The reported rate ranged from 1 percent to 15 percent and tended to be higher in neonates, particularly preterm neonates,” they said. Others at increased risk are those with underlying medical conditions, especially those with cardiac conditions who often require higher doses of contrast during invasive procedures.

In the recent studies, the time from ICM exposure to a diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction ranged from 8.5 to 138 days, but most occurred within 3 weeks, according to the update.

Patients and clinicians can report any adverse events from ICM or other medications to the FDA via FDA MedWatch program.

For more information, read the complete Drug Safety Communication.

The Food and Drug Administration has recommended thyroid monitoring for newborns and children through 3 years of age within 3 weeks of receiving injections of iodine-containing contrast media as part of imaging procedures.

A recent FDA review showed that “underactive thyroid or a temporary decrease in thyroid hormone levels were uncommon,” according to an updated Drug Safety Communication issued on March 30, 2022.

However, early monitoring will help identify and treat any thyroid abnormalities as a result of the injections to help prevent potential complications in the future, according to the FDA, as babies and children do not generally show visible signs of thyroid problems and may not do so after an iodinated contrast media (ICM) injection.

ICM have been approved and used for decades to enhance images on x-rays or computed tomography (CT) scans, according to the communication.

The new FDA warning and recommendation for monitoring applies to the prescribing information for the entire class of ICM products. The new communication is an update to the 2015 Drug Safety Communication that advised medical professionals of the potential for underactive thyroid in response to ICM injections in newborns and young children. The update reflects new studies since that time.

The recent research showed that most reported cases of adverse effects were transient subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment, according to the FDA. “The reported rate ranged from 1 percent to 15 percent and tended to be higher in neonates, particularly preterm neonates,” they said. Others at increased risk are those with underlying medical conditions, especially those with cardiac conditions who often require higher doses of contrast during invasive procedures.

In the recent studies, the time from ICM exposure to a diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction ranged from 8.5 to 138 days, but most occurred within 3 weeks, according to the update.

Patients and clinicians can report any adverse events from ICM or other medications to the FDA via FDA MedWatch program.

For more information, read the complete Drug Safety Communication.

The Food and Drug Administration has recommended thyroid monitoring for newborns and children through 3 years of age within 3 weeks of receiving injections of iodine-containing contrast media as part of imaging procedures.

A recent FDA review showed that “underactive thyroid or a temporary decrease in thyroid hormone levels were uncommon,” according to an updated Drug Safety Communication issued on March 30, 2022.

However, early monitoring will help identify and treat any thyroid abnormalities as a result of the injections to help prevent potential complications in the future, according to the FDA, as babies and children do not generally show visible signs of thyroid problems and may not do so after an iodinated contrast media (ICM) injection.

ICM have been approved and used for decades to enhance images on x-rays or computed tomography (CT) scans, according to the communication.

The new FDA warning and recommendation for monitoring applies to the prescribing information for the entire class of ICM products. The new communication is an update to the 2015 Drug Safety Communication that advised medical professionals of the potential for underactive thyroid in response to ICM injections in newborns and young children. The update reflects new studies since that time.

The recent research showed that most reported cases of adverse effects were transient subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment, according to the FDA. “The reported rate ranged from 1 percent to 15 percent and tended to be higher in neonates, particularly preterm neonates,” they said. Others at increased risk are those with underlying medical conditions, especially those with cardiac conditions who often require higher doses of contrast during invasive procedures.

In the recent studies, the time from ICM exposure to a diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction ranged from 8.5 to 138 days, but most occurred within 3 weeks, according to the update.

Patients and clinicians can report any adverse events from ICM or other medications to the FDA via FDA MedWatch program.

For more information, read the complete Drug Safety Communication.

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

A new study has drawn attention to inaccurate measurement of LDL-cholesterol levels in some patients with current assays, which could lead to incorrect therapeutic approaches.

The patient groups most affected are those with high levels of the lipoprotein Lp(a), in whom LDL-cholesterol levels are being overestimated in current laboratory tests, the authors say.

“Current laboratory assays all have the limitation that they cannot measure or report LDL cholesterol accurately. They are actually measuring the combination of LDL and Lp(a),” senior study author Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, explained to this news organization.

“Lp(a) can be lowered a little with niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors, but both have a quite a weak effect, and statins increase Lp(a). However, there are now multiple RNA-based therapeutics specifically targeting Lp(a) in clinical development,” he said.

At present, Lp(a) cholesterol has to be mathematically estimated, most commonly with the Dahlén formula, because of the lack of a validated, quantitative method to measure Lp(a) cholesterol, Dr. Tsimikas says.  

For the current study, the researchers used a novel, quantitative, sensitive method to directly measure Lp(a) cholesterol, then applied this method to data from a recent study with the one of the new Lp(a)-lowering drugs in development – pelacarsen – which was conducted in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.

Results showed that direct Lp(a)-cholesterol assessment, and subtracting this value from the laboratory LDL-cholesterol value, provides a more accurate reflection of the baseline and change in LDL cholesterol, the authors report. In the current study, corrected LDL cholesterol was 13 to 16 mg/dL lower than laboratory-reported LDL cholesterol.

Using the corrected LDL-cholesterol results, the study showed that pelacarsen significantly decreases Lp(a) cholesterol, with neutral to modest effects on LDL.

The study also suggests that the current method of calculating Lp(a) cholesterol, and then deriving a corrected LDL cholesterol – the Dahlén formula – is not accurate. 

“The Dahlén formula relies on the assumption that Lp(a) cholesterol is universally a fixed 30% of Lp(a) mass, but this usually isn’t the case. The Dahlén formula needs to be discontinued. It can be highly inaccurate,” Dr. Tsimikas said.  

Important implications

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Paré, MD, Michael Chong, PhD student, and Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, BSc, all of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., say the current findings have three important clinical implications.

“First, they provide further proof that in individuals with elevated Lp(a), the contribution of Lp(a)-cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol is non-negligible using standard assays, with 13-16 mg/dL lower LDL-cholesterol post-correction.”

Secondly, the editorialists point out that these new findings confirm that the effect of Lp(a) inhibitors is likely to be mostly confined to Lp(a), “as would be expected.”

Finally, “and perhaps more importantly, the authors highlight the need to improve clinical reporting of lipid fractions to properly treat LDL-cholesterol and Lp(a) in high-risk patients,” they note.

“The report paves the way for future studies investigating the clinical utility of these additional measurements to initiate and monitor lipid-lowering therapy,” they conclude.

The clinical trial was funded by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and the direct Lp(a)-cholesterol measurements were funded by Novartis through a research grant to the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tsimikas is an employee of Ionis Pharmaceuticals and of the University of California, San Diego, and he is a cofounder of Covicept Therapeutics. He is also a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD on oxidation-specific antibodies and on biomarkers related to oxidized lipoproteins, as well as a cofounder and has equity interest in Oxitope and Kleanthi Diagnostics.

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

A new study has drawn attention to inaccurate measurement of LDL-cholesterol levels in some patients with current assays, which could lead to incorrect therapeutic approaches.

The patient groups most affected are those with high levels of the lipoprotein Lp(a), in whom LDL-cholesterol levels are being overestimated in current laboratory tests, the authors say.

“Current laboratory assays all have the limitation that they cannot measure or report LDL cholesterol accurately. They are actually measuring the combination of LDL and Lp(a),” senior study author Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, explained to this news organization.

“Lp(a) can be lowered a little with niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors, but both have a quite a weak effect, and statins increase Lp(a). However, there are now multiple RNA-based therapeutics specifically targeting Lp(a) in clinical development,” he said.

At present, Lp(a) cholesterol has to be mathematically estimated, most commonly with the Dahlén formula, because of the lack of a validated, quantitative method to measure Lp(a) cholesterol, Dr. Tsimikas says.  

For the current study, the researchers used a novel, quantitative, sensitive method to directly measure Lp(a) cholesterol, then applied this method to data from a recent study with the one of the new Lp(a)-lowering drugs in development – pelacarsen – which was conducted in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.

Results showed that direct Lp(a)-cholesterol assessment, and subtracting this value from the laboratory LDL-cholesterol value, provides a more accurate reflection of the baseline and change in LDL cholesterol, the authors report. In the current study, corrected LDL cholesterol was 13 to 16 mg/dL lower than laboratory-reported LDL cholesterol.

Using the corrected LDL-cholesterol results, the study showed that pelacarsen significantly decreases Lp(a) cholesterol, with neutral to modest effects on LDL.

The study also suggests that the current method of calculating Lp(a) cholesterol, and then deriving a corrected LDL cholesterol – the Dahlén formula – is not accurate. 

“The Dahlén formula relies on the assumption that Lp(a) cholesterol is universally a fixed 30% of Lp(a) mass, but this usually isn’t the case. The Dahlén formula needs to be discontinued. It can be highly inaccurate,” Dr. Tsimikas said.  

Important implications

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Paré, MD, Michael Chong, PhD student, and Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, BSc, all of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., say the current findings have three important clinical implications.

“First, they provide further proof that in individuals with elevated Lp(a), the contribution of Lp(a)-cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol is non-negligible using standard assays, with 13-16 mg/dL lower LDL-cholesterol post-correction.”

Secondly, the editorialists point out that these new findings confirm that the effect of Lp(a) inhibitors is likely to be mostly confined to Lp(a), “as would be expected.”

Finally, “and perhaps more importantly, the authors highlight the need to improve clinical reporting of lipid fractions to properly treat LDL-cholesterol and Lp(a) in high-risk patients,” they note.

“The report paves the way for future studies investigating the clinical utility of these additional measurements to initiate and monitor lipid-lowering therapy,” they conclude.

The clinical trial was funded by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and the direct Lp(a)-cholesterol measurements were funded by Novartis through a research grant to the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tsimikas is an employee of Ionis Pharmaceuticals and of the University of California, San Diego, and he is a cofounder of Covicept Therapeutics. He is also a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD on oxidation-specific antibodies and on biomarkers related to oxidized lipoproteins, as well as a cofounder and has equity interest in Oxitope and Kleanthi Diagnostics.

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

A new study has drawn attention to inaccurate measurement of LDL-cholesterol levels in some patients with current assays, which could lead to incorrect therapeutic approaches.

The patient groups most affected are those with high levels of the lipoprotein Lp(a), in whom LDL-cholesterol levels are being overestimated in current laboratory tests, the authors say.

“Current laboratory assays all have the limitation that they cannot measure or report LDL cholesterol accurately. They are actually measuring the combination of LDL and Lp(a),” senior study author Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, explained to this news organization.

“Lp(a) can be lowered a little with niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors, but both have a quite a weak effect, and statins increase Lp(a). However, there are now multiple RNA-based therapeutics specifically targeting Lp(a) in clinical development,” he said.

At present, Lp(a) cholesterol has to be mathematically estimated, most commonly with the Dahlén formula, because of the lack of a validated, quantitative method to measure Lp(a) cholesterol, Dr. Tsimikas says.  

For the current study, the researchers used a novel, quantitative, sensitive method to directly measure Lp(a) cholesterol, then applied this method to data from a recent study with the one of the new Lp(a)-lowering drugs in development – pelacarsen – which was conducted in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.

Results showed that direct Lp(a)-cholesterol assessment, and subtracting this value from the laboratory LDL-cholesterol value, provides a more accurate reflection of the baseline and change in LDL cholesterol, the authors report. In the current study, corrected LDL cholesterol was 13 to 16 mg/dL lower than laboratory-reported LDL cholesterol.

Using the corrected LDL-cholesterol results, the study showed that pelacarsen significantly decreases Lp(a) cholesterol, with neutral to modest effects on LDL.

The study also suggests that the current method of calculating Lp(a) cholesterol, and then deriving a corrected LDL cholesterol – the Dahlén formula – is not accurate. 

“The Dahlén formula relies on the assumption that Lp(a) cholesterol is universally a fixed 30% of Lp(a) mass, but this usually isn’t the case. The Dahlén formula needs to be discontinued. It can be highly inaccurate,” Dr. Tsimikas said.  

Important implications

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Paré, MD, Michael Chong, PhD student, and Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, BSc, all of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., say the current findings have three important clinical implications.

“First, they provide further proof that in individuals with elevated Lp(a), the contribution of Lp(a)-cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol is non-negligible using standard assays, with 13-16 mg/dL lower LDL-cholesterol post-correction.”

Secondly, the editorialists point out that these new findings confirm that the effect of Lp(a) inhibitors is likely to be mostly confined to Lp(a), “as would be expected.”

Finally, “and perhaps more importantly, the authors highlight the need to improve clinical reporting of lipid fractions to properly treat LDL-cholesterol and Lp(a) in high-risk patients,” they note.

“The report paves the way for future studies investigating the clinical utility of these additional measurements to initiate and monitor lipid-lowering therapy,” they conclude.

The clinical trial was funded by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and the direct Lp(a)-cholesterol measurements were funded by Novartis through a research grant to the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tsimikas is an employee of Ionis Pharmaceuticals and of the University of California, San Diego, and he is a cofounder of Covicept Therapeutics. He is also a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD on oxidation-specific antibodies and on biomarkers related to oxidized lipoproteins, as well as a cofounder and has equity interest in Oxitope and Kleanthi Diagnostics.

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

Researchers running the EMPA-KIDNEY trial that’s been testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in about 6,600 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) announced on March 16 that they had stopped the trial early because of positive efficacy that met the study’s prespecified threshold for early termination.

EMPA-KIDNEY is the third major trial of an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransport 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class tested in patients with CKD to be stopped early because of positive results that met a prespecified termination rule.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

EMPA-KIDNEY enrolled a wider range of patients

EMPA-KIDNEY expands the scope of types of patients with CKD now shown to benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. CREDENCE tested canagliflozin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, and in DAPA-CKD, two-thirds of enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes, and all had CKD. In EMPA-KIDNEY, 46% of the 6,609 enrolled patients had diabetes (including a very small number with type 1 diabetes).

Another departure from prior studies of an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients selected primarily for having CKD was that in EMPA-KIDNEY, 20% of patients did not have albuminuria, and for 34%, eGFR at entry was less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m², with all enrolled patients required to have an eGFR at entry of greater than or equal to 20 mL/min/1.73 m². Average eGFR in EMPA-KIDNEY was about 38 mL/min/1.73 m². To be included in the trial, patients were not required to have albuminuria, except those whose eGFR was greater than or equal to 45 mL/min/1.73 m².

In DAPA-CKD, the minimum eGFR at entry had to be greater than or equal to 25 mL/min/1.73 m², and roughly 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m². The average eGFR in DAPA-CKD was about 43 mL/min/1.73 m². In addition, all patients had at least microalbuminuria, with a minimum urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200. In CREDENCE, the minimum eGFR for enrollment was 30 mL/min/1.73 m², and the average eGFR was about 56 mL/min/1.73 m². All patients in CREDENCE had to have macroalbuminuria, with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of more than 300.

According to the researchers who designed EMPA-KIDNEY, the trial enrollment criteria aimed to include adults with CKD “who are frequently seen in practice but were under-represented in previous SGLT2 inhibitor trials.”

Indications for empagliflozin are expanding

The success of empagliflozin in EMPA-KIDNEY follows its positive results in both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials, which collectively proved the efficacy of the agent for patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction and regardless of whether they also had diabetes.

These results led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recently expand the labeled indication for empagliflozin to all patients with heart failure. Empagliflozin also has labeled indications for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

As of today, empagliflozin has no labeled indication for treating patients with CKD. Dapagliflozin received that indication in April 2021, and canagliflozin received an indication for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, and albuminuria in September 2019.

EMPA-KIDNEY is sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance).

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

Researchers running the EMPA-KIDNEY trial that’s been testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in about 6,600 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) announced on March 16 that they had stopped the trial early because of positive efficacy that met the study’s prespecified threshold for early termination.

EMPA-KIDNEY is the third major trial of an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransport 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class tested in patients with CKD to be stopped early because of positive results that met a prespecified termination rule.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

EMPA-KIDNEY enrolled a wider range of patients

EMPA-KIDNEY expands the scope of types of patients with CKD now shown to benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. CREDENCE tested canagliflozin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, and in DAPA-CKD, two-thirds of enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes, and all had CKD. In EMPA-KIDNEY, 46% of the 6,609 enrolled patients had diabetes (including a very small number with type 1 diabetes).

Another departure from prior studies of an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients selected primarily for having CKD was that in EMPA-KIDNEY, 20% of patients did not have albuminuria, and for 34%, eGFR at entry was less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m², with all enrolled patients required to have an eGFR at entry of greater than or equal to 20 mL/min/1.73 m². Average eGFR in EMPA-KIDNEY was about 38 mL/min/1.73 m². To be included in the trial, patients were not required to have albuminuria, except those whose eGFR was greater than or equal to 45 mL/min/1.73 m².

In DAPA-CKD, the minimum eGFR at entry had to be greater than or equal to 25 mL/min/1.73 m², and roughly 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m². The average eGFR in DAPA-CKD was about 43 mL/min/1.73 m². In addition, all patients had at least microalbuminuria, with a minimum urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200. In CREDENCE, the minimum eGFR for enrollment was 30 mL/min/1.73 m², and the average eGFR was about 56 mL/min/1.73 m². All patients in CREDENCE had to have macroalbuminuria, with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of more than 300.

According to the researchers who designed EMPA-KIDNEY, the trial enrollment criteria aimed to include adults with CKD “who are frequently seen in practice but were under-represented in previous SGLT2 inhibitor trials.”

Indications for empagliflozin are expanding

The success of empagliflozin in EMPA-KIDNEY follows its positive results in both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials, which collectively proved the efficacy of the agent for patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction and regardless of whether they also had diabetes.

These results led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recently expand the labeled indication for empagliflozin to all patients with heart failure. Empagliflozin also has labeled indications for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

As of today, empagliflozin has no labeled indication for treating patients with CKD. Dapagliflozin received that indication in April 2021, and canagliflozin received an indication for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, and albuminuria in September 2019.

EMPA-KIDNEY is sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance).

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

Researchers running the EMPA-KIDNEY trial that’s been testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in about 6,600 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) announced on March 16 that they had stopped the trial early because of positive efficacy that met the study’s prespecified threshold for early termination.

EMPA-KIDNEY is the third major trial of an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransport 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class tested in patients with CKD to be stopped early because of positive results that met a prespecified termination rule.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

EMPA-KIDNEY enrolled a wider range of patients

EMPA-KIDNEY expands the scope of types of patients with CKD now shown to benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. CREDENCE tested canagliflozin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, and in DAPA-CKD, two-thirds of enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes, and all had CKD. In EMPA-KIDNEY, 46% of the 6,609 enrolled patients had diabetes (including a very small number with type 1 diabetes).

Another departure from prior studies of an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients selected primarily for having CKD was that in EMPA-KIDNEY, 20% of patients did not have albuminuria, and for 34%, eGFR at entry was less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m², with all enrolled patients required to have an eGFR at entry of greater than or equal to 20 mL/min/1.73 m². Average eGFR in EMPA-KIDNEY was about 38 mL/min/1.73 m². To be included in the trial, patients were not required to have albuminuria, except those whose eGFR was greater than or equal to 45 mL/min/1.73 m².

In DAPA-CKD, the minimum eGFR at entry had to be greater than or equal to 25 mL/min/1.73 m², and roughly 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m². The average eGFR in DAPA-CKD was about 43 mL/min/1.73 m². In addition, all patients had at least microalbuminuria, with a minimum urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200. In CREDENCE, the minimum eGFR for enrollment was 30 mL/min/1.73 m², and the average eGFR was about 56 mL/min/1.73 m². All patients in CREDENCE had to have macroalbuminuria, with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of more than 300.

According to the researchers who designed EMPA-KIDNEY, the trial enrollment criteria aimed to include adults with CKD “who are frequently seen in practice but were under-represented in previous SGLT2 inhibitor trials.”

Indications for empagliflozin are expanding

The success of empagliflozin in EMPA-KIDNEY follows its positive results in both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials, which collectively proved the efficacy of the agent for patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction and regardless of whether they also had diabetes.

These results led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recently expand the labeled indication for empagliflozin to all patients with heart failure. Empagliflozin also has labeled indications for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

As of today, empagliflozin has no labeled indication for treating patients with CKD. Dapagliflozin received that indication in April 2021, and canagliflozin received an indication for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, and albuminuria in September 2019.

EMPA-KIDNEY is sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance).

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

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.