Stroke

Nontraditional risk factors such as migraine and autoimmune diseases have a significantly greater effect on stroke risk in young adults than traditional risk factors such as hypertension, high cholesterol, and tobacco use, new research showed.

The findings may offer insight into the increased incidence of stroke in adults under age 45, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years in high-income countries, while incidence in those over 45 has decreased.

Investigators believe the findings are important because most conventional prevention efforts focus on traditional risk factors.

“The younger they are at the time of stroke, the more likely their stroke is due to a nontraditional risk factor,” lead author Michelle Leppert, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Traditional Versus Nontraditional

The researchers retrospectively analyzed 2618 stroke cases (52% female; 73% ischemic stroke) that resulted in an inpatient admission and 7827 controls, all aged 18-55 years. Data came from the Colorado All Payer Claims Database between January 2012 and April 2019. Controls were matched by age, sex, and insurance type.

Traditional risk factors were defined as being a well-established risk factor for stroke that is routinely noted during stroke prevention screenings in older adults, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, substance use disorder, and obesity.

Nontraditional risk factors were defined as those that are rarely cited as a cause of stroke in older adults, including migraines, malignancy, HIV, hepatitis, thrombophilia, autoimmune disease, vasculitis, sickle cell disease, heart valve disease, renal failure, and hormonal risk factors in women, such as oral contraceptives, pregnancy, or puerperium.

Overall, traditional risk factors were more common in stroke cases, with nontraditional factors playing a smaller role. However, among adults aged 18-34 years, more strokes were associated with nontraditional than traditional risk factors in men (31% vs 25%, respectively) and in women (43% vs 33%, respectively).

Migraine, the most common nontraditional risk factor for stroke in this younger age group, was found in 20% of men (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and 35% of women (OR, 3.3).

Other notable nontraditional risk factors included heart valve disease in both men and women (OR, 3.1 and OR, 4.2, respectively); renal failure in men (OR, 8.9); and autoimmune diseases in women (OR, 8.8).
 

An Underestimate?

The contribution of nontraditional risk factors declined with age. After the age of 44, they were no longer significant. Hypertension was the most important traditional risk factor and increased in contribution with age.

“There have been many studies demonstrating the association between migraines and strokes, but to our knowledge, this study may be the first to demonstrate just how much stroke risk may be attributable to migraines,” Dr. Leppert said.

Overall, women had significantly more risk factors for stroke than men. Among controls, 52% and 34% of women had at least one traditional and nontraditional risk factors, respectively, compared with 48% and 22% in men.

The total contribution of nontraditional risk factors was likely an underestimate because some such factors, including the autoimmune disorder antiphospholipid syndrome and patent foramen ovale, “lacked reliable administrative algorithms” and could not be assessed in this study, the researchers noted.

Further research on how nontraditional risk factors affect strokes could lead to better prevention.

“We need to better understand the underlying mechanisms of these nontraditional risk factors to develop targeted interventions,” Dr. Leppert said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award. Dr. Leppert reports receiving an American Heart Association Career Development Grant. Other disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nontraditional risk factors such as migraine and autoimmune diseases have a significantly greater effect on stroke risk in young adults than traditional risk factors such as hypertension, high cholesterol, and tobacco use, new research showed.

The findings may offer insight into the increased incidence of stroke in adults under age 45, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years in high-income countries, while incidence in those over 45 has decreased.

Investigators believe the findings are important because most conventional prevention efforts focus on traditional risk factors.

“The younger they are at the time of stroke, the more likely their stroke is due to a nontraditional risk factor,” lead author Michelle Leppert, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Traditional Versus Nontraditional

The researchers retrospectively analyzed 2618 stroke cases (52% female; 73% ischemic stroke) that resulted in an inpatient admission and 7827 controls, all aged 18-55 years. Data came from the Colorado All Payer Claims Database between January 2012 and April 2019. Controls were matched by age, sex, and insurance type.

Traditional risk factors were defined as being a well-established risk factor for stroke that is routinely noted during stroke prevention screenings in older adults, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, substance use disorder, and obesity.

Nontraditional risk factors were defined as those that are rarely cited as a cause of stroke in older adults, including migraines, malignancy, HIV, hepatitis, thrombophilia, autoimmune disease, vasculitis, sickle cell disease, heart valve disease, renal failure, and hormonal risk factors in women, such as oral contraceptives, pregnancy, or puerperium.

Overall, traditional risk factors were more common in stroke cases, with nontraditional factors playing a smaller role. However, among adults aged 18-34 years, more strokes were associated with nontraditional than traditional risk factors in men (31% vs 25%, respectively) and in women (43% vs 33%, respectively).

Migraine, the most common nontraditional risk factor for stroke in this younger age group, was found in 20% of men (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and 35% of women (OR, 3.3).

Other notable nontraditional risk factors included heart valve disease in both men and women (OR, 3.1 and OR, 4.2, respectively); renal failure in men (OR, 8.9); and autoimmune diseases in women (OR, 8.8).
 

An Underestimate?

The contribution of nontraditional risk factors declined with age. After the age of 44, they were no longer significant. Hypertension was the most important traditional risk factor and increased in contribution with age.

“There have been many studies demonstrating the association between migraines and strokes, but to our knowledge, this study may be the first to demonstrate just how much stroke risk may be attributable to migraines,” Dr. Leppert said.

Overall, women had significantly more risk factors for stroke than men. Among controls, 52% and 34% of women had at least one traditional and nontraditional risk factors, respectively, compared with 48% and 22% in men.

The total contribution of nontraditional risk factors was likely an underestimate because some such factors, including the autoimmune disorder antiphospholipid syndrome and patent foramen ovale, “lacked reliable administrative algorithms” and could not be assessed in this study, the researchers noted.

Further research on how nontraditional risk factors affect strokes could lead to better prevention.

“We need to better understand the underlying mechanisms of these nontraditional risk factors to develop targeted interventions,” Dr. Leppert said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award. Dr. Leppert reports receiving an American Heart Association Career Development Grant. Other disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nontraditional risk factors such as migraine and autoimmune diseases have a significantly greater effect on stroke risk in young adults than traditional risk factors such as hypertension, high cholesterol, and tobacco use, new research showed.

The findings may offer insight into the increased incidence of stroke in adults under age 45, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years in high-income countries, while incidence in those over 45 has decreased.

Investigators believe the findings are important because most conventional prevention efforts focus on traditional risk factors.

“The younger they are at the time of stroke, the more likely their stroke is due to a nontraditional risk factor,” lead author Michelle Leppert, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Traditional Versus Nontraditional

The researchers retrospectively analyzed 2618 stroke cases (52% female; 73% ischemic stroke) that resulted in an inpatient admission and 7827 controls, all aged 18-55 years. Data came from the Colorado All Payer Claims Database between January 2012 and April 2019. Controls were matched by age, sex, and insurance type.

Traditional risk factors were defined as being a well-established risk factor for stroke that is routinely noted during stroke prevention screenings in older adults, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, substance use disorder, and obesity.

Nontraditional risk factors were defined as those that are rarely cited as a cause of stroke in older adults, including migraines, malignancy, HIV, hepatitis, thrombophilia, autoimmune disease, vasculitis, sickle cell disease, heart valve disease, renal failure, and hormonal risk factors in women, such as oral contraceptives, pregnancy, or puerperium.

Overall, traditional risk factors were more common in stroke cases, with nontraditional factors playing a smaller role. However, among adults aged 18-34 years, more strokes were associated with nontraditional than traditional risk factors in men (31% vs 25%, respectively) and in women (43% vs 33%, respectively).

Migraine, the most common nontraditional risk factor for stroke in this younger age group, was found in 20% of men (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and 35% of women (OR, 3.3).

Other notable nontraditional risk factors included heart valve disease in both men and women (OR, 3.1 and OR, 4.2, respectively); renal failure in men (OR, 8.9); and autoimmune diseases in women (OR, 8.8).
 

An Underestimate?

The contribution of nontraditional risk factors declined with age. After the age of 44, they were no longer significant. Hypertension was the most important traditional risk factor and increased in contribution with age.

“There have been many studies demonstrating the association between migraines and strokes, but to our knowledge, this study may be the first to demonstrate just how much stroke risk may be attributable to migraines,” Dr. Leppert said.

Overall, women had significantly more risk factors for stroke than men. Among controls, 52% and 34% of women had at least one traditional and nontraditional risk factors, respectively, compared with 48% and 22% in men.

The total contribution of nontraditional risk factors was likely an underestimate because some such factors, including the autoimmune disorder antiphospholipid syndrome and patent foramen ovale, “lacked reliable administrative algorithms” and could not be assessed in this study, the researchers noted.

Further research on how nontraditional risk factors affect strokes could lead to better prevention.

“We need to better understand the underlying mechanisms of these nontraditional risk factors to develop targeted interventions,” Dr. Leppert said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award. Dr. Leppert reports receiving an American Heart Association Career Development Grant. Other disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a cardiologist specializing in obesity medicine, I often encounter patients who would greatly benefit from the new generation of weight loss drugs that work as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists. In the recently published SELECT trial results, for example, semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk as Wegovy for weight loss and Ozempic for type 2 diabetes) demonstrated a 20% risk reduction of heart attacks and strokes in overweight and obese individuals without diabetes and with cardiovascular disease, establishing it as a cardiovascular disease–modifying medication in people without type 2 diabetes.

Unfortunately, the high demand for these new weight loss medications has resulted in a frustrating, long-lasting shortage. The manufacturers of the two FDA-approved drugs, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly (tirzepatide, marketed as Zepbound for weight loss and Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes), are struggling to meet the overwhelming need.

To ensure continuation of patient care, federal law allows compounding pharmacies to make “essentially a copy” of the medications that are listed as “currently in shortage” on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug shortage list. Both semaglutide and tirzepatide are on that list. For Americans who suffer from obesity and other weight-related diseases, these drugs could be a lifeline.

Despite this, the medical community has broadly criticized the utilization of compounded GLP-1 agonists, even those obtained from reputable and legitimate compounding pharmacies.

Yes, high demand has led to the emergence of unregulated companies and scammers producing substandard or counterfeit versions of these medications.

The FDA has found fraudulent products (masquerading as the weight loss drugs) and has issued warning letters to stop the distribution of illegally marketed semaglutide. “These drugs may be counterfeit, which means they could contain the wrong ingredients, contain too little, too much or no active ingredient at all, or contain other harmful ingredients,” it cautions. Some products use a similar-sounding semaglutide sodium salt, which has uncertain safety and efficacy, and had generated warnings from the FDA and state boards of pharmacy.

Many of these products are marketed directly to consumers online through websites and social media, with little to no medical oversight. This practice is a significant concern, as it may affect patient safety, and should be discouraged.

However, according to a statement from the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC), legitimate compounding pharmacies aren’t the ones selling these dubious products on the black market, particularly online. This illegal practice has garnered media attention and is sometimes incorrectly associated with legitimate pharmacy compounding.

In contrast, legal and certified versions of GLP-1 agonist medications can be obtained from well-regulated and reputable compounding pharmacies. These pharmacies must adhere to all federal and state regulations and dispense medications only with a valid prescription from a licensed physician.

Meanwhile, the APC statement notes, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have sued compounding companies in several states, questioning, among other things, the purity and potency of some compounded products.

There are different designations for compounding pharmacies: 503A and 503B. 503As are state-licensed pharmacies and physicians, and 503B pharmacies are federally regulated outsourcing facilities that are strictly regulated by the FDA. This regulation, established following a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy, ensures higher-quality control and oversight, especially for medications intended for intravenous or epidural use. These standards exceed those required for subcutaneous injections like GLP-1 analogs.

In the face of this Wild West climate, where compounded drugs may vary in their source, formulation, potency, and purity, The Obesity Society, the Obesity Medical Association, and the Obesity Action Coalition published a joint statement that advised against the use of compounded GLP-1 agonists, citing safety concerns and lack of regulatory oversight.

This stance, while aimed at ensuring patient safety, inadvertently raises a critical issue.

By completely dismissing compounded medications, experts may unintentionally bolster the black market and overlook the needs of patients who could benefit from these medications, contrary to the intentions of the exemption provided in federal law for compounding during a drug shortage. In fact, the presence of unreliable suppliers highlights the need to direct the public toward trustworthy sources, rather than imposing a total ban on medically appropriate alternatives.

The joint statement calls compounded GLP-1 agonists “counterfeit.” This inaccurate overgeneralization probably stems from a misunderstanding of the compounding process and its regulations. Legitimate and regulated pharmacies compound base GLP-1 agonists, which are “essentially a copy” of FDA-approved medications, not counterfeits. Recognizing this is crucial for maintaining trust in both compounding pharmacies and regulatory bodies.

It is correct that “the only FDA-approved manufacturers of these medications are the companies that created the active pharmaceutical ingredients — Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly,” but the joint statement fails to mention the exemptions provided by law that allow compounding copies of the branded medications if they are on the shortage list.

Compounding pharmacies must obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from FDA-registered facilities, which are required to adhere to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). This ensures the APIs’ quality, potency, and purity, crucial for the safety and efficacy of compounded medications.

Compounded drugs are not FDA approved, but they aren’t inherently unsafe. Compounded medications include critical drugs such as resuscitation medications and antibiotics, and are often used in healthcare settings, especially when there’s a shortage. This raises the question of why compounded GLP-1 agonists would be treated any differently in such scenarios.

And in the case of alternative drugs for individuals with obesity who have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, the brand-name FDA-approved alternative may be of more concern than the compounded GLP-1 agonist. The obesity societies advise: “If you cannot find or get access to a GLP-1-based treatment now, there are other treatments available,” echoing experts. While the statement doesn’t specify the names of the alternatives, experts have advised using alternatives such as Qsymia and Contrave, despite their potential cardiovascular concerns. This recommendation to the public may not represent a responsible risk-benefit analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Einav

Possible Solutions

When prescribing GLP-1 agonists for obesity treatment, doctors should consider all of the following steps to ensure patient safety and effective treatment:

Preference for FDA-approved brands: FDA-approved branded GLP-1 agonist medications should be the primary choice because of their established safety and efficacy.

Risk-benefit analysis for non–FDA-approved products: In cases where FDA-approved options are not available, doctors may consider prescribing a non–FDA-approved copy of the branded medication. Prior to this, conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis with the patient, ensuring that they are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of using a non–FDA-approved product.

Choosing semaglutide copies for specific cases: In patients with obesity and cardiovascular disease, the benefits of using a compounded copy of semaglutide, with its cardiovascular disease–modifying properties, may outweigh the risks compared with other FDA-approved antiobesity drugs that might pose cardiovascular risks or compared with no antiobesity treatment at all.

Informed consent and monitoring: When prescribing a non–FDA-approved version of a GLP-1 agonist, obtaining informed consent from the patient is advised. They should be made aware of the differences between the FDA-approved and nonapproved versions.

Choosing between 503A and 503B pharmacies: Prescriptions for non–FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists can be directed to either 503A or 503B compounding pharmacies. However, it’s advisable to check whether the product can be compounded by a 503B pharmacy, which is subject to an additional layer of FDA regulation, offering greater quality assurance.

Clear prescription specifications: Ensure that the prescription explicitly states that the compounded GLP-1 agonist should be the base compound without additives.

Requesting a Certificate of Analysis: To further ensure safety, request a Certificate of Analysis from the compounding pharmacy. This provides detailed quality and composition information about the product.

Ongoing monitoring: Continuously monitor the patient’s response to the medication and adjust the treatment plan as necessary, maintaining regular follow-ups.

By adhering to these guidelines, doctors can navigate the complexities of prescribing GLP-1 agonists in a way that prioritizes patient well-being, particularly in scenarios where conventional treatment options are limited.
 

Dr. Einav is a board-certified cardiologist and a Diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine. He is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. He serves as the medical director of cardiometabolic health in Guthrie Lourdes in Binghamton, New York, and is the founder of myW8/Cardiometabolic Health located in Beverly Hills, California. This article solely reflects the personal views of Dr. Einav and should not be considered as representing the official stance of Guthrie Lourdes. Dr. Einav served as a promotional speaker for Novo Nordisk in 2022. As of now, he has not prescribed any compounded GLP-1 agonist medications in his medical practice.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a cardiologist specializing in obesity medicine, I often encounter patients who would greatly benefit from the new generation of weight loss drugs that work as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists. In the recently published SELECT trial results, for example, semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk as Wegovy for weight loss and Ozempic for type 2 diabetes) demonstrated a 20% risk reduction of heart attacks and strokes in overweight and obese individuals without diabetes and with cardiovascular disease, establishing it as a cardiovascular disease–modifying medication in people without type 2 diabetes.

Unfortunately, the high demand for these new weight loss medications has resulted in a frustrating, long-lasting shortage. The manufacturers of the two FDA-approved drugs, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly (tirzepatide, marketed as Zepbound for weight loss and Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes), are struggling to meet the overwhelming need.

To ensure continuation of patient care, federal law allows compounding pharmacies to make “essentially a copy” of the medications that are listed as “currently in shortage” on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug shortage list. Both semaglutide and tirzepatide are on that list. For Americans who suffer from obesity and other weight-related diseases, these drugs could be a lifeline.

Despite this, the medical community has broadly criticized the utilization of compounded GLP-1 agonists, even those obtained from reputable and legitimate compounding pharmacies.

Yes, high demand has led to the emergence of unregulated companies and scammers producing substandard or counterfeit versions of these medications.

The FDA has found fraudulent products (masquerading as the weight loss drugs) and has issued warning letters to stop the distribution of illegally marketed semaglutide. “These drugs may be counterfeit, which means they could contain the wrong ingredients, contain too little, too much or no active ingredient at all, or contain other harmful ingredients,” it cautions. Some products use a similar-sounding semaglutide sodium salt, which has uncertain safety and efficacy, and had generated warnings from the FDA and state boards of pharmacy.

Many of these products are marketed directly to consumers online through websites and social media, with little to no medical oversight. This practice is a significant concern, as it may affect patient safety, and should be discouraged.

However, according to a statement from the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC), legitimate compounding pharmacies aren’t the ones selling these dubious products on the black market, particularly online. This illegal practice has garnered media attention and is sometimes incorrectly associated with legitimate pharmacy compounding.

In contrast, legal and certified versions of GLP-1 agonist medications can be obtained from well-regulated and reputable compounding pharmacies. These pharmacies must adhere to all federal and state regulations and dispense medications only with a valid prescription from a licensed physician.

Meanwhile, the APC statement notes, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have sued compounding companies in several states, questioning, among other things, the purity and potency of some compounded products.

There are different designations for compounding pharmacies: 503A and 503B. 503As are state-licensed pharmacies and physicians, and 503B pharmacies are federally regulated outsourcing facilities that are strictly regulated by the FDA. This regulation, established following a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy, ensures higher-quality control and oversight, especially for medications intended for intravenous or epidural use. These standards exceed those required for subcutaneous injections like GLP-1 analogs.

In the face of this Wild West climate, where compounded drugs may vary in their source, formulation, potency, and purity, The Obesity Society, the Obesity Medical Association, and the Obesity Action Coalition published a joint statement that advised against the use of compounded GLP-1 agonists, citing safety concerns and lack of regulatory oversight.

This stance, while aimed at ensuring patient safety, inadvertently raises a critical issue.

By completely dismissing compounded medications, experts may unintentionally bolster the black market and overlook the needs of patients who could benefit from these medications, contrary to the intentions of the exemption provided in federal law for compounding during a drug shortage. In fact, the presence of unreliable suppliers highlights the need to direct the public toward trustworthy sources, rather than imposing a total ban on medically appropriate alternatives.

The joint statement calls compounded GLP-1 agonists “counterfeit.” This inaccurate overgeneralization probably stems from a misunderstanding of the compounding process and its regulations. Legitimate and regulated pharmacies compound base GLP-1 agonists, which are “essentially a copy” of FDA-approved medications, not counterfeits. Recognizing this is crucial for maintaining trust in both compounding pharmacies and regulatory bodies.

It is correct that “the only FDA-approved manufacturers of these medications are the companies that created the active pharmaceutical ingredients — Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly,” but the joint statement fails to mention the exemptions provided by law that allow compounding copies of the branded medications if they are on the shortage list.

Compounding pharmacies must obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from FDA-registered facilities, which are required to adhere to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). This ensures the APIs’ quality, potency, and purity, crucial for the safety and efficacy of compounded medications.

Compounded drugs are not FDA approved, but they aren’t inherently unsafe. Compounded medications include critical drugs such as resuscitation medications and antibiotics, and are often used in healthcare settings, especially when there’s a shortage. This raises the question of why compounded GLP-1 agonists would be treated any differently in such scenarios.

And in the case of alternative drugs for individuals with obesity who have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, the brand-name FDA-approved alternative may be of more concern than the compounded GLP-1 agonist. The obesity societies advise: “If you cannot find or get access to a GLP-1-based treatment now, there are other treatments available,” echoing experts. While the statement doesn’t specify the names of the alternatives, experts have advised using alternatives such as Qsymia and Contrave, despite their potential cardiovascular concerns. This recommendation to the public may not represent a responsible risk-benefit analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Einav

Possible Solutions

When prescribing GLP-1 agonists for obesity treatment, doctors should consider all of the following steps to ensure patient safety and effective treatment:

Preference for FDA-approved brands: FDA-approved branded GLP-1 agonist medications should be the primary choice because of their established safety and efficacy.

Risk-benefit analysis for non–FDA-approved products: In cases where FDA-approved options are not available, doctors may consider prescribing a non–FDA-approved copy of the branded medication. Prior to this, conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis with the patient, ensuring that they are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of using a non–FDA-approved product.

Choosing semaglutide copies for specific cases: In patients with obesity and cardiovascular disease, the benefits of using a compounded copy of semaglutide, with its cardiovascular disease–modifying properties, may outweigh the risks compared with other FDA-approved antiobesity drugs that might pose cardiovascular risks or compared with no antiobesity treatment at all.

Informed consent and monitoring: When prescribing a non–FDA-approved version of a GLP-1 agonist, obtaining informed consent from the patient is advised. They should be made aware of the differences between the FDA-approved and nonapproved versions.

Choosing between 503A and 503B pharmacies: Prescriptions for non–FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists can be directed to either 503A or 503B compounding pharmacies. However, it’s advisable to check whether the product can be compounded by a 503B pharmacy, which is subject to an additional layer of FDA regulation, offering greater quality assurance.

Clear prescription specifications: Ensure that the prescription explicitly states that the compounded GLP-1 agonist should be the base compound without additives.

Requesting a Certificate of Analysis: To further ensure safety, request a Certificate of Analysis from the compounding pharmacy. This provides detailed quality and composition information about the product.

Ongoing monitoring: Continuously monitor the patient’s response to the medication and adjust the treatment plan as necessary, maintaining regular follow-ups.

By adhering to these guidelines, doctors can navigate the complexities of prescribing GLP-1 agonists in a way that prioritizes patient well-being, particularly in scenarios where conventional treatment options are limited.
 

Dr. Einav is a board-certified cardiologist and a Diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine. He is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. He serves as the medical director of cardiometabolic health in Guthrie Lourdes in Binghamton, New York, and is the founder of myW8/Cardiometabolic Health located in Beverly Hills, California. This article solely reflects the personal views of Dr. Einav and should not be considered as representing the official stance of Guthrie Lourdes. Dr. Einav served as a promotional speaker for Novo Nordisk in 2022. As of now, he has not prescribed any compounded GLP-1 agonist medications in his medical practice.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a cardiologist specializing in obesity medicine, I often encounter patients who would greatly benefit from the new generation of weight loss drugs that work as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists. In the recently published SELECT trial results, for example, semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk as Wegovy for weight loss and Ozempic for type 2 diabetes) demonstrated a 20% risk reduction of heart attacks and strokes in overweight and obese individuals without diabetes and with cardiovascular disease, establishing it as a cardiovascular disease–modifying medication in people without type 2 diabetes.

Unfortunately, the high demand for these new weight loss medications has resulted in a frustrating, long-lasting shortage. The manufacturers of the two FDA-approved drugs, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly (tirzepatide, marketed as Zepbound for weight loss and Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes), are struggling to meet the overwhelming need.

To ensure continuation of patient care, federal law allows compounding pharmacies to make “essentially a copy” of the medications that are listed as “currently in shortage” on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug shortage list. Both semaglutide and tirzepatide are on that list. For Americans who suffer from obesity and other weight-related diseases, these drugs could be a lifeline.

Despite this, the medical community has broadly criticized the utilization of compounded GLP-1 agonists, even those obtained from reputable and legitimate compounding pharmacies.

Yes, high demand has led to the emergence of unregulated companies and scammers producing substandard or counterfeit versions of these medications.

The FDA has found fraudulent products (masquerading as the weight loss drugs) and has issued warning letters to stop the distribution of illegally marketed semaglutide. “These drugs may be counterfeit, which means they could contain the wrong ingredients, contain too little, too much or no active ingredient at all, or contain other harmful ingredients,” it cautions. Some products use a similar-sounding semaglutide sodium salt, which has uncertain safety and efficacy, and had generated warnings from the FDA and state boards of pharmacy.

Many of these products are marketed directly to consumers online through websites and social media, with little to no medical oversight. This practice is a significant concern, as it may affect patient safety, and should be discouraged.

However, according to a statement from the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC), legitimate compounding pharmacies aren’t the ones selling these dubious products on the black market, particularly online. This illegal practice has garnered media attention and is sometimes incorrectly associated with legitimate pharmacy compounding.

In contrast, legal and certified versions of GLP-1 agonist medications can be obtained from well-regulated and reputable compounding pharmacies. These pharmacies must adhere to all federal and state regulations and dispense medications only with a valid prescription from a licensed physician.

Meanwhile, the APC statement notes, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have sued compounding companies in several states, questioning, among other things, the purity and potency of some compounded products.

There are different designations for compounding pharmacies: 503A and 503B. 503As are state-licensed pharmacies and physicians, and 503B pharmacies are federally regulated outsourcing facilities that are strictly regulated by the FDA. This regulation, established following a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy, ensures higher-quality control and oversight, especially for medications intended for intravenous or epidural use. These standards exceed those required for subcutaneous injections like GLP-1 analogs.

In the face of this Wild West climate, where compounded drugs may vary in their source, formulation, potency, and purity, The Obesity Society, the Obesity Medical Association, and the Obesity Action Coalition published a joint statement that advised against the use of compounded GLP-1 agonists, citing safety concerns and lack of regulatory oversight.

This stance, while aimed at ensuring patient safety, inadvertently raises a critical issue.

By completely dismissing compounded medications, experts may unintentionally bolster the black market and overlook the needs of patients who could benefit from these medications, contrary to the intentions of the exemption provided in federal law for compounding during a drug shortage. In fact, the presence of unreliable suppliers highlights the need to direct the public toward trustworthy sources, rather than imposing a total ban on medically appropriate alternatives.

The joint statement calls compounded GLP-1 agonists “counterfeit.” This inaccurate overgeneralization probably stems from a misunderstanding of the compounding process and its regulations. Legitimate and regulated pharmacies compound base GLP-1 agonists, which are “essentially a copy” of FDA-approved medications, not counterfeits. Recognizing this is crucial for maintaining trust in both compounding pharmacies and regulatory bodies.

It is correct that “the only FDA-approved manufacturers of these medications are the companies that created the active pharmaceutical ingredients — Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly,” but the joint statement fails to mention the exemptions provided by law that allow compounding copies of the branded medications if they are on the shortage list.

Compounding pharmacies must obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from FDA-registered facilities, which are required to adhere to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). This ensures the APIs’ quality, potency, and purity, crucial for the safety and efficacy of compounded medications.

Compounded drugs are not FDA approved, but they aren’t inherently unsafe. Compounded medications include critical drugs such as resuscitation medications and antibiotics, and are often used in healthcare settings, especially when there’s a shortage. This raises the question of why compounded GLP-1 agonists would be treated any differently in such scenarios.

And in the case of alternative drugs for individuals with obesity who have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease, the brand-name FDA-approved alternative may be of more concern than the compounded GLP-1 agonist. The obesity societies advise: “If you cannot find or get access to a GLP-1-based treatment now, there are other treatments available,” echoing experts. While the statement doesn’t specify the names of the alternatives, experts have advised using alternatives such as Qsymia and Contrave, despite their potential cardiovascular concerns. This recommendation to the public may not represent a responsible risk-benefit analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Einav

Possible Solutions

When prescribing GLP-1 agonists for obesity treatment, doctors should consider all of the following steps to ensure patient safety and effective treatment:

Preference for FDA-approved brands: FDA-approved branded GLP-1 agonist medications should be the primary choice because of their established safety and efficacy.

Risk-benefit analysis for non–FDA-approved products: In cases where FDA-approved options are not available, doctors may consider prescribing a non–FDA-approved copy of the branded medication. Prior to this, conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis with the patient, ensuring that they are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of using a non–FDA-approved product.

Choosing semaglutide copies for specific cases: In patients with obesity and cardiovascular disease, the benefits of using a compounded copy of semaglutide, with its cardiovascular disease–modifying properties, may outweigh the risks compared with other FDA-approved antiobesity drugs that might pose cardiovascular risks or compared with no antiobesity treatment at all.

Informed consent and monitoring: When prescribing a non–FDA-approved version of a GLP-1 agonist, obtaining informed consent from the patient is advised. They should be made aware of the differences between the FDA-approved and nonapproved versions.

Choosing between 503A and 503B pharmacies: Prescriptions for non–FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists can be directed to either 503A or 503B compounding pharmacies. However, it’s advisable to check whether the product can be compounded by a 503B pharmacy, which is subject to an additional layer of FDA regulation, offering greater quality assurance.

Clear prescription specifications: Ensure that the prescription explicitly states that the compounded GLP-1 agonist should be the base compound without additives.

Requesting a Certificate of Analysis: To further ensure safety, request a Certificate of Analysis from the compounding pharmacy. This provides detailed quality and composition information about the product.

Ongoing monitoring: Continuously monitor the patient’s response to the medication and adjust the treatment plan as necessary, maintaining regular follow-ups.

By adhering to these guidelines, doctors can navigate the complexities of prescribing GLP-1 agonists in a way that prioritizes patient well-being, particularly in scenarios where conventional treatment options are limited.
 

Dr. Einav is a board-certified cardiologist and a Diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine. He is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. He serves as the medical director of cardiometabolic health in Guthrie Lourdes in Binghamton, New York, and is the founder of myW8/Cardiometabolic Health located in Beverly Hills, California. This article solely reflects the personal views of Dr. Einav and should not be considered as representing the official stance of Guthrie Lourdes. Dr. Einav served as a promotional speaker for Novo Nordisk in 2022. As of now, he has not prescribed any compounded GLP-1 agonist medications in his medical practice.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Black people, men, older adults, and those living in rural communities are less likely to receive thrombolytic therapy after ischemic stroke, early research shows.

“The findings should serve as an eye-opener that social determinants of health seem to be playing a role in who receives thrombolytic therapy, said study investigator Chanaka Kahathuduwa, MD, PhD, resident physician, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock. 

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Contributor to Poor Outcomes

Social determinants of health are important contributors to poor stroke-related outcomes, the investigators noted. They pointed out that previous research has yielded conflicting results as to the cause.

Whereas some studies suggest poor social determinants of health drive increased stroke incidence, others raise the question of whether there are disparities in acute stroke care. 

To investigate, the researchers used a publicly available database and diagnostic and procedure codes to identify patients presenting at emergency departments in Texas from 2016 to 2019 with ischemic stroke who did and did not receive thrombolytic therapy.

“We focused on Texas, which has a very large area but few places where people have easy access to health care, which is a problem,” said study co-investigator Chathurika Dhanasekara, MD, PhD, research assistant professor in the Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

The study included 63,983 stroke patients, of whom 51.6% were female, 66.6% were White, and 17.7% were Black. Of these, 7198 (11.2%) received thrombolytic therapy; such therapies include the tissue plasminogen activators (tPAs) alteplase and tenecteplace.

Researchers collected information on social determinants of health such as age, race, gender, insurance type, and residence based on zip codes. They computed risk ratios (RRs) of administering thrombolysis on the basis of these variables.

Results showed that Black patients were less likely than their White counterparts to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96). In addition, patients older than 65 years were less likely those aged 18-45 years to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.44-0.51), and rural residents were less likely than urban dwellers to receive the intervention (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.55-0.65).

It makes some sense, the researchers said, that rural stroke patients would be less likely to get thrombolysis because there’s a limited time window — within 4.5 hours — during which this therapy can be given, and such patients may live a long distance from a hospital.

Two other groups less likely to receive thrombolysis were Hispanic persons versus non-Hispanic persons (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98) and Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans Administration patients (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81) or uninsured patients (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.94-0.87) vs those with private insurance.

Interestingly, male patients were less likely than female patients to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99).
 

Surprising Findings

With the exception of the discrepancy in thrombolysis rates between rural versus urban dwellers, the study’s findings were surprising, said Dr. Kahathuduwa. 

Researchers divided participants into quartiles, from least to most disadvantaged, based on the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine social vulnerability or factors that can negatively affect a community’s health. 

Among the 7930 individuals in the least disadvantaged group, 1037 received thrombolysis. In comparison, among the 7966 persons in the most disadvantaged group, 964 received thrombolysis.

After adjusting for age, sex, and education, investigators found that patients in the first quartile based on SVI were more likely to be associated with thrombolysis vs those in the second and third quartiles (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22).

The researchers also examined the impact of comorbidities using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients with diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol in addition to signs of stroke would rouse a higher degree of suspicion and be more likely to be treated with tPA or tenecteplase, said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

“But even when we controlled for those comorbidities, the relationships we identified between health disparities and the likelihood of receiving thrombolysis remained the same,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

It’s not clear from this study what factors contribute to the disparities in stroke treatment. “All we know is these relationships exist,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa. “We should use this as a foundation to understand what’s really going on at the grassroots level.”

However, he added, it’s possible that accessibility plays a role. He noted that Lubbock has the only Level 1 stroke center in west Texas; most stroke centers in the state are concentrated in cities in east and central Texas.

The investigators are embarking on further research to assess the impact of determinants of health on receipt of endovascular therapy and the role of stroke severity.

“In an ideal world, all patients who need thrombolytic therapy would get thrombolytic therapy within the recommended time window because the benefits are very clear,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

The findings may not be generalizable because they come from a single database. “Our findings need to be validated in another independent dataset before we can confidently determine what’s going on,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

A limitation of the study was that it is unknown how many of the participants were seen at the hospital within the recommended time frame and would thus be eligible to receive the treatment.

Commenting on the research, Martinson Arnan, MD , a vascular neurologist at Bronson Neuroscience Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan, said the study’s “exploratory finding” is important and “illuminates the potential impact of social determinants of health on disparities in acute stroke treatment.”

Neurologists consistently emphasize the principle that “time is brain” — that timely restoration of blood flow is crucial for minimizing morbidity associated with ischemic stroke. This study offers a potential opportunity to investigate how social determinants of health may affect stroke care, said Dr. Arnan.

However, he added, further research is needed “to understand whether the differences in outcomes observed here are influenced by levels of health education, concordance between patients and their treating providers, or other issues related to access barriers.” 

The investigators and Dr. Arnan report no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Black people, men, older adults, and those living in rural communities are less likely to receive thrombolytic therapy after ischemic stroke, early research shows.

“The findings should serve as an eye-opener that social determinants of health seem to be playing a role in who receives thrombolytic therapy, said study investigator Chanaka Kahathuduwa, MD, PhD, resident physician, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock. 

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Contributor to Poor Outcomes

Social determinants of health are important contributors to poor stroke-related outcomes, the investigators noted. They pointed out that previous research has yielded conflicting results as to the cause.

Whereas some studies suggest poor social determinants of health drive increased stroke incidence, others raise the question of whether there are disparities in acute stroke care. 

To investigate, the researchers used a publicly available database and diagnostic and procedure codes to identify patients presenting at emergency departments in Texas from 2016 to 2019 with ischemic stroke who did and did not receive thrombolytic therapy.

“We focused on Texas, which has a very large area but few places where people have easy access to health care, which is a problem,” said study co-investigator Chathurika Dhanasekara, MD, PhD, research assistant professor in the Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

The study included 63,983 stroke patients, of whom 51.6% were female, 66.6% were White, and 17.7% were Black. Of these, 7198 (11.2%) received thrombolytic therapy; such therapies include the tissue plasminogen activators (tPAs) alteplase and tenecteplace.

Researchers collected information on social determinants of health such as age, race, gender, insurance type, and residence based on zip codes. They computed risk ratios (RRs) of administering thrombolysis on the basis of these variables.

Results showed that Black patients were less likely than their White counterparts to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96). In addition, patients older than 65 years were less likely those aged 18-45 years to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.44-0.51), and rural residents were less likely than urban dwellers to receive the intervention (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.55-0.65).

It makes some sense, the researchers said, that rural stroke patients would be less likely to get thrombolysis because there’s a limited time window — within 4.5 hours — during which this therapy can be given, and such patients may live a long distance from a hospital.

Two other groups less likely to receive thrombolysis were Hispanic persons versus non-Hispanic persons (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98) and Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans Administration patients (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81) or uninsured patients (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.94-0.87) vs those with private insurance.

Interestingly, male patients were less likely than female patients to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99).
 

Surprising Findings

With the exception of the discrepancy in thrombolysis rates between rural versus urban dwellers, the study’s findings were surprising, said Dr. Kahathuduwa. 

Researchers divided participants into quartiles, from least to most disadvantaged, based on the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine social vulnerability or factors that can negatively affect a community’s health. 

Among the 7930 individuals in the least disadvantaged group, 1037 received thrombolysis. In comparison, among the 7966 persons in the most disadvantaged group, 964 received thrombolysis.

After adjusting for age, sex, and education, investigators found that patients in the first quartile based on SVI were more likely to be associated with thrombolysis vs those in the second and third quartiles (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22).

The researchers also examined the impact of comorbidities using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients with diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol in addition to signs of stroke would rouse a higher degree of suspicion and be more likely to be treated with tPA or tenecteplase, said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

“But even when we controlled for those comorbidities, the relationships we identified between health disparities and the likelihood of receiving thrombolysis remained the same,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

It’s not clear from this study what factors contribute to the disparities in stroke treatment. “All we know is these relationships exist,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa. “We should use this as a foundation to understand what’s really going on at the grassroots level.”

However, he added, it’s possible that accessibility plays a role. He noted that Lubbock has the only Level 1 stroke center in west Texas; most stroke centers in the state are concentrated in cities in east and central Texas.

The investigators are embarking on further research to assess the impact of determinants of health on receipt of endovascular therapy and the role of stroke severity.

“In an ideal world, all patients who need thrombolytic therapy would get thrombolytic therapy within the recommended time window because the benefits are very clear,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

The findings may not be generalizable because they come from a single database. “Our findings need to be validated in another independent dataset before we can confidently determine what’s going on,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

A limitation of the study was that it is unknown how many of the participants were seen at the hospital within the recommended time frame and would thus be eligible to receive the treatment.

Commenting on the research, Martinson Arnan, MD , a vascular neurologist at Bronson Neuroscience Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan, said the study’s “exploratory finding” is important and “illuminates the potential impact of social determinants of health on disparities in acute stroke treatment.”

Neurologists consistently emphasize the principle that “time is brain” — that timely restoration of blood flow is crucial for minimizing morbidity associated with ischemic stroke. This study offers a potential opportunity to investigate how social determinants of health may affect stroke care, said Dr. Arnan.

However, he added, further research is needed “to understand whether the differences in outcomes observed here are influenced by levels of health education, concordance between patients and their treating providers, or other issues related to access barriers.” 

The investigators and Dr. Arnan report no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Black people, men, older adults, and those living in rural communities are less likely to receive thrombolytic therapy after ischemic stroke, early research shows.

“The findings should serve as an eye-opener that social determinants of health seem to be playing a role in who receives thrombolytic therapy, said study investigator Chanaka Kahathuduwa, MD, PhD, resident physician, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock. 

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Contributor to Poor Outcomes

Social determinants of health are important contributors to poor stroke-related outcomes, the investigators noted. They pointed out that previous research has yielded conflicting results as to the cause.

Whereas some studies suggest poor social determinants of health drive increased stroke incidence, others raise the question of whether there are disparities in acute stroke care. 

To investigate, the researchers used a publicly available database and diagnostic and procedure codes to identify patients presenting at emergency departments in Texas from 2016 to 2019 with ischemic stroke who did and did not receive thrombolytic therapy.

“We focused on Texas, which has a very large area but few places where people have easy access to health care, which is a problem,” said study co-investigator Chathurika Dhanasekara, MD, PhD, research assistant professor in the Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

The study included 63,983 stroke patients, of whom 51.6% were female, 66.6% were White, and 17.7% were Black. Of these, 7198 (11.2%) received thrombolytic therapy; such therapies include the tissue plasminogen activators (tPAs) alteplase and tenecteplace.

Researchers collected information on social determinants of health such as age, race, gender, insurance type, and residence based on zip codes. They computed risk ratios (RRs) of administering thrombolysis on the basis of these variables.

Results showed that Black patients were less likely than their White counterparts to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96). In addition, patients older than 65 years were less likely those aged 18-45 years to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.44-0.51), and rural residents were less likely than urban dwellers to receive the intervention (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.55-0.65).

It makes some sense, the researchers said, that rural stroke patients would be less likely to get thrombolysis because there’s a limited time window — within 4.5 hours — during which this therapy can be given, and such patients may live a long distance from a hospital.

Two other groups less likely to receive thrombolysis were Hispanic persons versus non-Hispanic persons (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98) and Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans Administration patients (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81) or uninsured patients (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.94-0.87) vs those with private insurance.

Interestingly, male patients were less likely than female patients to receive thrombolysis (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99).
 

Surprising Findings

With the exception of the discrepancy in thrombolysis rates between rural versus urban dwellers, the study’s findings were surprising, said Dr. Kahathuduwa. 

Researchers divided participants into quartiles, from least to most disadvantaged, based on the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine social vulnerability or factors that can negatively affect a community’s health. 

Among the 7930 individuals in the least disadvantaged group, 1037 received thrombolysis. In comparison, among the 7966 persons in the most disadvantaged group, 964 received thrombolysis.

After adjusting for age, sex, and education, investigators found that patients in the first quartile based on SVI were more likely to be associated with thrombolysis vs those in the second and third quartiles (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22).

The researchers also examined the impact of comorbidities using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients with diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol in addition to signs of stroke would rouse a higher degree of suspicion and be more likely to be treated with tPA or tenecteplase, said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

“But even when we controlled for those comorbidities, the relationships we identified between health disparities and the likelihood of receiving thrombolysis remained the same,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

It’s not clear from this study what factors contribute to the disparities in stroke treatment. “All we know is these relationships exist,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa. “We should use this as a foundation to understand what’s really going on at the grassroots level.”

However, he added, it’s possible that accessibility plays a role. He noted that Lubbock has the only Level 1 stroke center in west Texas; most stroke centers in the state are concentrated in cities in east and central Texas.

The investigators are embarking on further research to assess the impact of determinants of health on receipt of endovascular therapy and the role of stroke severity.

“In an ideal world, all patients who need thrombolytic therapy would get thrombolytic therapy within the recommended time window because the benefits are very clear,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

The findings may not be generalizable because they come from a single database. “Our findings need to be validated in another independent dataset before we can confidently determine what’s going on,” said Dr. Kahathuduwa.

A limitation of the study was that it is unknown how many of the participants were seen at the hospital within the recommended time frame and would thus be eligible to receive the treatment.

Commenting on the research, Martinson Arnan, MD , a vascular neurologist at Bronson Neuroscience Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan, said the study’s “exploratory finding” is important and “illuminates the potential impact of social determinants of health on disparities in acute stroke treatment.”

Neurologists consistently emphasize the principle that “time is brain” — that timely restoration of blood flow is crucial for minimizing morbidity associated with ischemic stroke. This study offers a potential opportunity to investigate how social determinants of health may affect stroke care, said Dr. Arnan.

However, he added, further research is needed “to understand whether the differences in outcomes observed here are influenced by levels of health education, concordance between patients and their treating providers, or other issues related to access barriers.” 

The investigators and Dr. Arnan report no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While it is increasingly apparent that clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is associated with conditions that can dramatically affect an individual’s risk for both malignant and cardiovascular diseases, and even death, it has not been clear what to do about it.

Now, researchers at the cutting edge of both oncologic and cardiovascular research are not only defining the prognosis of CHIP with greater granularity but are also finding clues to mitigate the risks.

“It’s a very, very rapidly moving area,” said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, Director, Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, adding that, in many respects, “it’s a totally new area.”
 

CHIP Defined

CHIP was first recognized in the 1990s, when Martin F. Fey, MD, and colleagues from University and Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland, found X-linked inactivation in older women and suggested it was the result of acquired clonality later referred to as being of “indeterminate potential,” although that added syntax is currently a matter of debate.

Further work showed that, while somatic gene mutations occur spontaneously and are an unavoidable consequence of aging, their impact can vary widely.

The majority are “functionally silent,” while others may affect genes crucial to tissue self-renewal and differentiation, Lukasz Gondek, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Johns Hopkins Cellular and Molecular Medicine Program, Baltimore, and colleagues, noted in a recent review.

This results in the outgrowth of affected cells, known as clonal expansion, further dubbed clonal hematopoiesis when it occurs in hematopoietic tissue.

“Even though there’s clonal expansion, there’s no one CHIP,” Dr. Gondek said. “There are different flavors, and it depends on the genes that are mutated in the hematopoietic cells.”

He continued: “The older we get, the more mutations we acquire, and the probability that this mutation will hit the gene that’s responsible for expansion of the clone is higher.”

“That’s why CHIP is very uncommon in people under the age of 40, but it becomes more common in the fifth, sixth, and seventh decade of life and beyond.”

Indeed, it occurs in 10% to 15% of people aged 65 years or older, and in at least 30% of individuals by 80 years of age. In contrast, just 1% of those aged less than 50 years have the condition.

The most commonly affected genes, in around 80% of patients with CHIP, are the epigenetic regulators DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1; the DNA damage repair genes PPM1D and TP53; the regulatory tyrosine kinase JAK2; and the messenger RNA spliceosome components SF3B1 and SRSF2.

These mutations can have “two potential consequences,” explained Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“One is that there’s a risk of blood cancer development,” as several of the mutations are known drivers of leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Although the majority of individuals who acquire clonal hematopoiesis with age will never develop MDS, it nevertheless confers an 11- to 13-fold increased risk or an absolute risk of approximately 0.5%-1.0% per year.

Dr. Weeks continued that “the other side of it, though, is that those cells that have these mutations can also accelerate the risk of developing nonmalignant diseases like cardiovascular disease.”

This, Dr. Gondek explained, is because the mutations will be retained when the stem cells become monocytes or macrophages and, by either silencing or activating individual genes, they can make the cells more pro-inflammatory.

The result is that CHIP is associated with a marked increased risk for arteriosclerotic events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, decompensated heart failure, and cardiogenic shock, and worse outcomes after these events.

Researchers have shown that CHIP-related somatic mutations are associated with a twofold increased risk for coronary heart disease, a more than 2.5-fold increased risk for ischemic stroke, and a fourfold greater risk for myocardial infarction. A study from earlier this year found that CHIP also increases the risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction more than twofold.

There is even evidence to suggest that CHIP is associated with more severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and greater post-AKI kidney fibrosis.

The consequence is that individuals with CHIP face a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality over 8 years.
 

No CHIP Test Yet

All of which has led for some to call for CHIP testing.

However, there are currently no screening programs for CHIP and no plans to introduce any. “So most CHIP is actually being diagnosed incidentally, when patients get genetic testing for some other indication,” said Dr. Weeks.

“The patients that we see in our CHIP clinic at Dana-Farber have genetic testing because they have low blood counts,” she continued, “and somebody’s trying to figure out: Do you have MDS?”

Other patients have genetic testing due to a family history of other cancers, “and so they’re getting hereditary cancer panels to determine if they have Lynch syndrome, or other hereditary syndromes,” which are picking up gene mutations associated with CHIP.

In other cases, study protocols are identifying CHIP “in various research contexts, and then as a follow-up, some of those patients end up with our clinic,” added Dr. Weeks.

Due to the associated risks for CHIP, “obviously everyone wants to know whether they are at risk for hematologic malignancy, or not,” said Dr. Gondek. To those ends, Dr. Weeks and colleagues developed the clonal hematopoiesis risk score (CHRS).

Published by NEJM Evidence in 2023, the score takes a range of predictive variables, such as age, number of mutations and their degree of associated risk, the variant allele fraction, and a series of blood indices to define patients as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk.

“A little over half” of high-risk individuals “will develop a blood cancer” such as MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML)” over the next 10 years, Weeks explained, while “for your intermediate risk folks, in that same time period, 7%-8% of them will develop a blood cancer.”

In low-risk individuals, the 10-year risk for MDS or AML is just 1%.

Dr. Weeks noted the “caveat that there are environmental factors or patient-specific issues that might increase your risk that are not considered in the calculator,” such the presence of hereditary cancer syndromes, “or if you’re getting chemotherapy for other cancers.”

From a cardiology point of view, Dr. Ballantyne said that, above all, “cardiologists need to be aware that some of these people are at increased risk for cardiovascular events.” This prompted a team including Dr. Weeks and Dr. Ballantyne to study whether the CHRS can also predict cardiovascular risk.

They found that people designated low-risk on the score faced an 8% increased risk for all-cause mortality vs individuals without CHIP during a median follow-up of 7 years. This rose to a 12% increase in intermediate-risk individuals.

And those deemed high-risk had a 2.5-fold increased risk for early mortality and a threefold higher risk for cardiovascular death.

Dr. Weeks noted: “We have not done a dedicated study to define a cardiovascular disease-specific calculator for CHIP,” but in the meantime, the CHRS is a “very reasonable way to estimate what someone’s risk of progression or adverse events is for cardiovascular disease.”

For clinicians, however, the key question becomes: What can be done to mitigate the risks, particularly in high-risk individuals?

For malignant conditions, the approach is to monitor patients, although “we and other centers are in the process of developing various interventional clinical trials to test various agents on their ability to improve blood counts, as well as to mitigate the risk of progression to overt blood cancer,” said Dr. Weeks.
 

Treat CHIP Like Lipoprotein(a)?

As for cardiovascular risk, Dr. Ballantyne believes that, because CHIP is an unmodifiable risk factor, an example to follow could be lipoprotein(a) (LP[a]).

“We don’t have a therapy specifically to target LP(a) yet, but we do know that the things that benefit in general,” he said, such as “taking a statin, lowering blood pressure into the optimal zone, diet ,and exercise.”

“What we do in our clinic, and what others have been doing,” Dr. Weeks added, “is for every patient who comes in and is diagnosed with CHIP, we are referring them to preventative cardiology for very aggressive preventative management.”

Finally, both Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Weeks agree that there are many potential innovations on the horizon.

“It’s pretty exciting in terms of beginning to understand some of the links between aging, cardiovascular disease, and cancer that we had not been thinking about,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

On the malignant side, Dr. Weeks is already working on a prospective study to determine how the risks associated with CHIP evolve when patients undergo chemotherapy and radiation for other cancers.

“That will be really exciting and will help us to develop a specific calculator in that context,” she said, adding that a cardiovascular-specific calculator “is also coming down the line.”

Dr. Weeks declared relationships with Abbvie, Vertex, and Sobi. Dr. Ballantyne declared a relationship with Ten Sixteen Bio, and funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While it is increasingly apparent that clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is associated with conditions that can dramatically affect an individual’s risk for both malignant and cardiovascular diseases, and even death, it has not been clear what to do about it.

Now, researchers at the cutting edge of both oncologic and cardiovascular research are not only defining the prognosis of CHIP with greater granularity but are also finding clues to mitigate the risks.

“It’s a very, very rapidly moving area,” said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, Director, Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, adding that, in many respects, “it’s a totally new area.”
 

CHIP Defined

CHIP was first recognized in the 1990s, when Martin F. Fey, MD, and colleagues from University and Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland, found X-linked inactivation in older women and suggested it was the result of acquired clonality later referred to as being of “indeterminate potential,” although that added syntax is currently a matter of debate.

Further work showed that, while somatic gene mutations occur spontaneously and are an unavoidable consequence of aging, their impact can vary widely.

The majority are “functionally silent,” while others may affect genes crucial to tissue self-renewal and differentiation, Lukasz Gondek, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Johns Hopkins Cellular and Molecular Medicine Program, Baltimore, and colleagues, noted in a recent review.

This results in the outgrowth of affected cells, known as clonal expansion, further dubbed clonal hematopoiesis when it occurs in hematopoietic tissue.

“Even though there’s clonal expansion, there’s no one CHIP,” Dr. Gondek said. “There are different flavors, and it depends on the genes that are mutated in the hematopoietic cells.”

He continued: “The older we get, the more mutations we acquire, and the probability that this mutation will hit the gene that’s responsible for expansion of the clone is higher.”

“That’s why CHIP is very uncommon in people under the age of 40, but it becomes more common in the fifth, sixth, and seventh decade of life and beyond.”

Indeed, it occurs in 10% to 15% of people aged 65 years or older, and in at least 30% of individuals by 80 years of age. In contrast, just 1% of those aged less than 50 years have the condition.

The most commonly affected genes, in around 80% of patients with CHIP, are the epigenetic regulators DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1; the DNA damage repair genes PPM1D and TP53; the regulatory tyrosine kinase JAK2; and the messenger RNA spliceosome components SF3B1 and SRSF2.

These mutations can have “two potential consequences,” explained Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“One is that there’s a risk of blood cancer development,” as several of the mutations are known drivers of leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Although the majority of individuals who acquire clonal hematopoiesis with age will never develop MDS, it nevertheless confers an 11- to 13-fold increased risk or an absolute risk of approximately 0.5%-1.0% per year.

Dr. Weeks continued that “the other side of it, though, is that those cells that have these mutations can also accelerate the risk of developing nonmalignant diseases like cardiovascular disease.”

This, Dr. Gondek explained, is because the mutations will be retained when the stem cells become monocytes or macrophages and, by either silencing or activating individual genes, they can make the cells more pro-inflammatory.

The result is that CHIP is associated with a marked increased risk for arteriosclerotic events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, decompensated heart failure, and cardiogenic shock, and worse outcomes after these events.

Researchers have shown that CHIP-related somatic mutations are associated with a twofold increased risk for coronary heart disease, a more than 2.5-fold increased risk for ischemic stroke, and a fourfold greater risk for myocardial infarction. A study from earlier this year found that CHIP also increases the risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction more than twofold.

There is even evidence to suggest that CHIP is associated with more severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and greater post-AKI kidney fibrosis.

The consequence is that individuals with CHIP face a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality over 8 years.
 

No CHIP Test Yet

All of which has led for some to call for CHIP testing.

However, there are currently no screening programs for CHIP and no plans to introduce any. “So most CHIP is actually being diagnosed incidentally, when patients get genetic testing for some other indication,” said Dr. Weeks.

“The patients that we see in our CHIP clinic at Dana-Farber have genetic testing because they have low blood counts,” she continued, “and somebody’s trying to figure out: Do you have MDS?”

Other patients have genetic testing due to a family history of other cancers, “and so they’re getting hereditary cancer panels to determine if they have Lynch syndrome, or other hereditary syndromes,” which are picking up gene mutations associated with CHIP.

In other cases, study protocols are identifying CHIP “in various research contexts, and then as a follow-up, some of those patients end up with our clinic,” added Dr. Weeks.

Due to the associated risks for CHIP, “obviously everyone wants to know whether they are at risk for hematologic malignancy, or not,” said Dr. Gondek. To those ends, Dr. Weeks and colleagues developed the clonal hematopoiesis risk score (CHRS).

Published by NEJM Evidence in 2023, the score takes a range of predictive variables, such as age, number of mutations and their degree of associated risk, the variant allele fraction, and a series of blood indices to define patients as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk.

“A little over half” of high-risk individuals “will develop a blood cancer” such as MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML)” over the next 10 years, Weeks explained, while “for your intermediate risk folks, in that same time period, 7%-8% of them will develop a blood cancer.”

In low-risk individuals, the 10-year risk for MDS or AML is just 1%.

Dr. Weeks noted the “caveat that there are environmental factors or patient-specific issues that might increase your risk that are not considered in the calculator,” such the presence of hereditary cancer syndromes, “or if you’re getting chemotherapy for other cancers.”

From a cardiology point of view, Dr. Ballantyne said that, above all, “cardiologists need to be aware that some of these people are at increased risk for cardiovascular events.” This prompted a team including Dr. Weeks and Dr. Ballantyne to study whether the CHRS can also predict cardiovascular risk.

They found that people designated low-risk on the score faced an 8% increased risk for all-cause mortality vs individuals without CHIP during a median follow-up of 7 years. This rose to a 12% increase in intermediate-risk individuals.

And those deemed high-risk had a 2.5-fold increased risk for early mortality and a threefold higher risk for cardiovascular death.

Dr. Weeks noted: “We have not done a dedicated study to define a cardiovascular disease-specific calculator for CHIP,” but in the meantime, the CHRS is a “very reasonable way to estimate what someone’s risk of progression or adverse events is for cardiovascular disease.”

For clinicians, however, the key question becomes: What can be done to mitigate the risks, particularly in high-risk individuals?

For malignant conditions, the approach is to monitor patients, although “we and other centers are in the process of developing various interventional clinical trials to test various agents on their ability to improve blood counts, as well as to mitigate the risk of progression to overt blood cancer,” said Dr. Weeks.
 

Treat CHIP Like Lipoprotein(a)?

As for cardiovascular risk, Dr. Ballantyne believes that, because CHIP is an unmodifiable risk factor, an example to follow could be lipoprotein(a) (LP[a]).

“We don’t have a therapy specifically to target LP(a) yet, but we do know that the things that benefit in general,” he said, such as “taking a statin, lowering blood pressure into the optimal zone, diet ,and exercise.”

“What we do in our clinic, and what others have been doing,” Dr. Weeks added, “is for every patient who comes in and is diagnosed with CHIP, we are referring them to preventative cardiology for very aggressive preventative management.”

Finally, both Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Weeks agree that there are many potential innovations on the horizon.

“It’s pretty exciting in terms of beginning to understand some of the links between aging, cardiovascular disease, and cancer that we had not been thinking about,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

On the malignant side, Dr. Weeks is already working on a prospective study to determine how the risks associated with CHIP evolve when patients undergo chemotherapy and radiation for other cancers.

“That will be really exciting and will help us to develop a specific calculator in that context,” she said, adding that a cardiovascular-specific calculator “is also coming down the line.”

Dr. Weeks declared relationships with Abbvie, Vertex, and Sobi. Dr. Ballantyne declared a relationship with Ten Sixteen Bio, and funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While it is increasingly apparent that clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is associated with conditions that can dramatically affect an individual’s risk for both malignant and cardiovascular diseases, and even death, it has not been clear what to do about it.

Now, researchers at the cutting edge of both oncologic and cardiovascular research are not only defining the prognosis of CHIP with greater granularity but are also finding clues to mitigate the risks.

“It’s a very, very rapidly moving area,” said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, Director, Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, adding that, in many respects, “it’s a totally new area.”
 

CHIP Defined

CHIP was first recognized in the 1990s, when Martin F. Fey, MD, and colleagues from University and Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland, found X-linked inactivation in older women and suggested it was the result of acquired clonality later referred to as being of “indeterminate potential,” although that added syntax is currently a matter of debate.

Further work showed that, while somatic gene mutations occur spontaneously and are an unavoidable consequence of aging, their impact can vary widely.

The majority are “functionally silent,” while others may affect genes crucial to tissue self-renewal and differentiation, Lukasz Gondek, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Johns Hopkins Cellular and Molecular Medicine Program, Baltimore, and colleagues, noted in a recent review.

This results in the outgrowth of affected cells, known as clonal expansion, further dubbed clonal hematopoiesis when it occurs in hematopoietic tissue.

“Even though there’s clonal expansion, there’s no one CHIP,” Dr. Gondek said. “There are different flavors, and it depends on the genes that are mutated in the hematopoietic cells.”

He continued: “The older we get, the more mutations we acquire, and the probability that this mutation will hit the gene that’s responsible for expansion of the clone is higher.”

“That’s why CHIP is very uncommon in people under the age of 40, but it becomes more common in the fifth, sixth, and seventh decade of life and beyond.”

Indeed, it occurs in 10% to 15% of people aged 65 years or older, and in at least 30% of individuals by 80 years of age. In contrast, just 1% of those aged less than 50 years have the condition.

The most commonly affected genes, in around 80% of patients with CHIP, are the epigenetic regulators DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1; the DNA damage repair genes PPM1D and TP53; the regulatory tyrosine kinase JAK2; and the messenger RNA spliceosome components SF3B1 and SRSF2.

These mutations can have “two potential consequences,” explained Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“One is that there’s a risk of blood cancer development,” as several of the mutations are known drivers of leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Although the majority of individuals who acquire clonal hematopoiesis with age will never develop MDS, it nevertheless confers an 11- to 13-fold increased risk or an absolute risk of approximately 0.5%-1.0% per year.

Dr. Weeks continued that “the other side of it, though, is that those cells that have these mutations can also accelerate the risk of developing nonmalignant diseases like cardiovascular disease.”

This, Dr. Gondek explained, is because the mutations will be retained when the stem cells become monocytes or macrophages and, by either silencing or activating individual genes, they can make the cells more pro-inflammatory.

The result is that CHIP is associated with a marked increased risk for arteriosclerotic events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, decompensated heart failure, and cardiogenic shock, and worse outcomes after these events.

Researchers have shown that CHIP-related somatic mutations are associated with a twofold increased risk for coronary heart disease, a more than 2.5-fold increased risk for ischemic stroke, and a fourfold greater risk for myocardial infarction. A study from earlier this year found that CHIP also increases the risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction more than twofold.

There is even evidence to suggest that CHIP is associated with more severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and greater post-AKI kidney fibrosis.

The consequence is that individuals with CHIP face a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality over 8 years.
 

No CHIP Test Yet

All of which has led for some to call for CHIP testing.

However, there are currently no screening programs for CHIP and no plans to introduce any. “So most CHIP is actually being diagnosed incidentally, when patients get genetic testing for some other indication,” said Dr. Weeks.

“The patients that we see in our CHIP clinic at Dana-Farber have genetic testing because they have low blood counts,” she continued, “and somebody’s trying to figure out: Do you have MDS?”

Other patients have genetic testing due to a family history of other cancers, “and so they’re getting hereditary cancer panels to determine if they have Lynch syndrome, or other hereditary syndromes,” which are picking up gene mutations associated with CHIP.

In other cases, study protocols are identifying CHIP “in various research contexts, and then as a follow-up, some of those patients end up with our clinic,” added Dr. Weeks.

Due to the associated risks for CHIP, “obviously everyone wants to know whether they are at risk for hematologic malignancy, or not,” said Dr. Gondek. To those ends, Dr. Weeks and colleagues developed the clonal hematopoiesis risk score (CHRS).

Published by NEJM Evidence in 2023, the score takes a range of predictive variables, such as age, number of mutations and their degree of associated risk, the variant allele fraction, and a series of blood indices to define patients as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk.

“A little over half” of high-risk individuals “will develop a blood cancer” such as MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML)” over the next 10 years, Weeks explained, while “for your intermediate risk folks, in that same time period, 7%-8% of them will develop a blood cancer.”

In low-risk individuals, the 10-year risk for MDS or AML is just 1%.

Dr. Weeks noted the “caveat that there are environmental factors or patient-specific issues that might increase your risk that are not considered in the calculator,” such the presence of hereditary cancer syndromes, “or if you’re getting chemotherapy for other cancers.”

From a cardiology point of view, Dr. Ballantyne said that, above all, “cardiologists need to be aware that some of these people are at increased risk for cardiovascular events.” This prompted a team including Dr. Weeks and Dr. Ballantyne to study whether the CHRS can also predict cardiovascular risk.

They found that people designated low-risk on the score faced an 8% increased risk for all-cause mortality vs individuals without CHIP during a median follow-up of 7 years. This rose to a 12% increase in intermediate-risk individuals.

And those deemed high-risk had a 2.5-fold increased risk for early mortality and a threefold higher risk for cardiovascular death.

Dr. Weeks noted: “We have not done a dedicated study to define a cardiovascular disease-specific calculator for CHIP,” but in the meantime, the CHRS is a “very reasonable way to estimate what someone’s risk of progression or adverse events is for cardiovascular disease.”

For clinicians, however, the key question becomes: What can be done to mitigate the risks, particularly in high-risk individuals?

For malignant conditions, the approach is to monitor patients, although “we and other centers are in the process of developing various interventional clinical trials to test various agents on their ability to improve blood counts, as well as to mitigate the risk of progression to overt blood cancer,” said Dr. Weeks.
 

Treat CHIP Like Lipoprotein(a)?

As for cardiovascular risk, Dr. Ballantyne believes that, because CHIP is an unmodifiable risk factor, an example to follow could be lipoprotein(a) (LP[a]).

“We don’t have a therapy specifically to target LP(a) yet, but we do know that the things that benefit in general,” he said, such as “taking a statin, lowering blood pressure into the optimal zone, diet ,and exercise.”

“What we do in our clinic, and what others have been doing,” Dr. Weeks added, “is for every patient who comes in and is diagnosed with CHIP, we are referring them to preventative cardiology for very aggressive preventative management.”

Finally, both Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Weeks agree that there are many potential innovations on the horizon.

“It’s pretty exciting in terms of beginning to understand some of the links between aging, cardiovascular disease, and cancer that we had not been thinking about,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

On the malignant side, Dr. Weeks is already working on a prospective study to determine how the risks associated with CHIP evolve when patients undergo chemotherapy and radiation for other cancers.

“That will be really exciting and will help us to develop a specific calculator in that context,” she said, adding that a cardiovascular-specific calculator “is also coming down the line.”

Dr. Weeks declared relationships with Abbvie, Vertex, and Sobi. Dr. Ballantyne declared a relationship with Ten Sixteen Bio, and funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.