Clinical Endocrinology News

In the 2 decades from 1999 to 2018, ultraprocessed foods consistently accounted for the majority of energy intake by American young people, a large cross-sectional study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data shows.

In young people aged 2-19 years, the estimated percentage of total energy from consumption of ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67.0%, for a difference of 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.5-7.7, P < .001 for trend), according to Lu Wang, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, and colleagues.

In contrast, total energy from non- or minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5% (difference −5.3%, 95% CI, −7.5 to −3.2, P < .001 for trend).

“The estimated percentage of energy consumed from ultraprocessed foods increased from 1999 to 2018, with an increasing trend in ready-to-heat and -eat mixed dishes and a decreasing trend in sugar-sweetened beverages,” the authors wrote. The report was published online Aug. 10 in JAMA.

The findings held regardless of the educational and socioeconomic status of the children’s parents.

Significant disparities by race and ethnicity emerged, however, with the ultraprocessed food phenomenon more marked in non-Hispanic Black youths and Mexican-American youths than in their non-Hispanic White counterparts. “Targeted marketing of junk foods toward racial/ethnic minority youths may partly contribute to such differences,” the authors wrote. “However, persistently lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods among Mexican-American youths may reflect more home cooking among Hispanic families.”

Among non-Hispanic Black youths consumption rose from 62.2% to 72.5% (difference 10.3%, 95% CI, 6.8-13.8) and among Mexican-American youths from 55.8% to 63.5% (difference 7.6%, 95% CI, 4.4-10.9). In non-Hispanic White youths intake rose from 63.4% to 68.6% (difference 5.2%, 95% CI, 2.1-8.3, P = .04 for trends).

In addition, a higher consumption of ultraprocessed foods among school-aged youths than among preschool children aged 2-5 years may reflect increased marketing, availability, and selection of ultraprocessed foods for older youths, the authors noted.

Food processing, with its potential adverse effects, may need to be considered as a food dimension in addition to nutrients and food groups in future dietary recommendations and food policies, they added.

“An increasing number of studies are showing a link between ultraprocessed food consumption and adverse health outcomes in children,” corresponding author Fang Fang Zhang, MD, PhD, Neely Family Professor and associate professor at Tufts’ Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, said in an interview. “Health care providers can play a larger role in encouraging patients – and their parents – to replace unhealthy ultraprocessed foods such as ultraprocessed sweet bakery products with healthy unprocessed or minimally processed foods in their diet such as less processed whole grains. “

In Dr. Zhang’s view, teachers also have a part to play in promoting nutrition literacy. “Schools can play an important role in empowering children with knowledge and skills to make healthy food choices,” she said. “Nutrition literacy should be an integral part of the health education curriculum in all K-12 schools.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Michelle Katzow, MD, a pediatrician/obesity medicine specialist and assistant professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said the work highlights an often overlooked aspect of the modern American diet that may well be contributing to poor health outcomes in young people.

“It suggests that even as the science advances and we learn more about the adverse health effects of ultraprocessed foods, public health efforts to improve nutrition and food quality in children have not been successful,” she said in an interview. “This is because it is so hard for public health advocates to compete with the food industry, which stands to really benefit financially from hooking kids on processed foods that are not good for their health.”

Dr. Katzow added that the observed racial/ethnic disparities are not surprising in light of a growing body of evidence that racism exists in food marketing. “We need to put forward policies that regulate the food industry, particularly in relation to its most susceptible targets, our kids.”
 

Study details

The serial cross-sectional analysis used 24-hour dietary recall data from a nationally representative sample from 10 NHANES cycles for the range of 1999-2000 to 2017-2018. The weighted mean age of the cohort was 10.7 years and 49.1% were girls.

Among the subgroups of ultraprocessed foods, the estimated percentage of energy from ready-to-heat and ready-to-eat mixed dishes increased from 2.2% to 11.2% (difference 8.9%; 95%, CI, 7.7-10.2).

Energy from sweets and sweet snacks increased from 10.7% to 12.9% (difference 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.0-3.6), but the estimated percentage of energy decreased for sugar-sweetened beverages from 10.8% to 5.3% (difference −5.5%; 95% CI, −6.5 to −4.5).

In other categories, estimated energy intake from processed fats and oils, condiments, and sauces fell from 7.1% to 4.0% (difference −3.1%; 95% CI, −3.7 to −2.6, all P < .05 for trend).

Not surprisingly, ultraprocessed foods had an overall poorer nutrient profile than that of nonultraprocessed, although they often contained less saturated fat, and they also contained more carbohydrates, mostly from low-quality sources with added sugars and low levels of dietary fiber and protein.

And despite a higher total folate content in ultraprocessed foods because of fortification, higher-level consumers took in less total folate owing to their lower consumption of whole foods.

The authors cautioned that in addition to poor nutrient profiles, processing itself may harm health by changing the physical structure and chemical composition of food, which could lead to elevated glycemic response and reduced satiety. Furthermore, recent research has linked food additives such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, and artificial sweeteners to adverse metabolomic effects and obesity risk. Pointing to the recent success of efforts to reduce consumption of sugary beverages, Dr. Zhang said, “We need to mobilize the same energy and level of commitment when it comes to other unhealthy ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, doughnuts, and brownies.”

The trends identified by the Tufts study “are concerning and potentially have major public health significance,” according to an accompanying JAMA editorial.

“Better dietary assessment methods are needed to document trends and understand the unique role of ultraprocessed foods to inform future evidence-based policy and dietary recommendations,” wrote Katie A. Meyer, ScD, and Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, of the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

The editorialists share the authors’ view that “a conceptual advancement would be to consider the level and characteristics of processing as just one of multiple dimensions (including nutrients and food groups) used to classify foods as healthy or unhealthy.” They pointed out that the Pan American Health Organization already recommends targeting products that are ultraprocessed and high in concerning add-in nutrients.

They cautioned, however, that the classification of ultraprocessed foods will not be easy because it requires data on a full list of ingredients, and the effects of processing generally cannot be separated from the composite nutrients of ultraprocessed foods.

This presents a challenge for national food consumption research “given that most large epidemiological studies rely on food frequency questionnaires that lack the information necessary to classify processing levels,” they wrote.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the São Paulo Research Foundation. Coauthor Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist at Tufts University, disclosed support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Rockefeller Foundation as well as personal fees from several commercial companies. He has served on several scientific advisory boards and received royalties from UpToDate, all outside of the submitted work. Dr. Meyer reported a grant from choline manufacturer Balchem. Dr. Taillie reported funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Dr. Zhang had no disclosures. Dr. Katzow disclosed no competing interests.

In the 2 decades from 1999 to 2018, ultraprocessed foods consistently accounted for the majority of energy intake by American young people, a large cross-sectional study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data shows.

In young people aged 2-19 years, the estimated percentage of total energy from consumption of ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67.0%, for a difference of 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.5-7.7, P < .001 for trend), according to Lu Wang, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, and colleagues.

In contrast, total energy from non- or minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5% (difference −5.3%, 95% CI, −7.5 to −3.2, P < .001 for trend).

“The estimated percentage of energy consumed from ultraprocessed foods increased from 1999 to 2018, with an increasing trend in ready-to-heat and -eat mixed dishes and a decreasing trend in sugar-sweetened beverages,” the authors wrote. The report was published online Aug. 10 in JAMA.

The findings held regardless of the educational and socioeconomic status of the children’s parents.

Significant disparities by race and ethnicity emerged, however, with the ultraprocessed food phenomenon more marked in non-Hispanic Black youths and Mexican-American youths than in their non-Hispanic White counterparts. “Targeted marketing of junk foods toward racial/ethnic minority youths may partly contribute to such differences,” the authors wrote. “However, persistently lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods among Mexican-American youths may reflect more home cooking among Hispanic families.”

Among non-Hispanic Black youths consumption rose from 62.2% to 72.5% (difference 10.3%, 95% CI, 6.8-13.8) and among Mexican-American youths from 55.8% to 63.5% (difference 7.6%, 95% CI, 4.4-10.9). In non-Hispanic White youths intake rose from 63.4% to 68.6% (difference 5.2%, 95% CI, 2.1-8.3, P = .04 for trends).

In addition, a higher consumption of ultraprocessed foods among school-aged youths than among preschool children aged 2-5 years may reflect increased marketing, availability, and selection of ultraprocessed foods for older youths, the authors noted.

Food processing, with its potential adverse effects, may need to be considered as a food dimension in addition to nutrients and food groups in future dietary recommendations and food policies, they added.

“An increasing number of studies are showing a link between ultraprocessed food consumption and adverse health outcomes in children,” corresponding author Fang Fang Zhang, MD, PhD, Neely Family Professor and associate professor at Tufts’ Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, said in an interview. “Health care providers can play a larger role in encouraging patients – and their parents – to replace unhealthy ultraprocessed foods such as ultraprocessed sweet bakery products with healthy unprocessed or minimally processed foods in their diet such as less processed whole grains. “

In Dr. Zhang’s view, teachers also have a part to play in promoting nutrition literacy. “Schools can play an important role in empowering children with knowledge and skills to make healthy food choices,” she said. “Nutrition literacy should be an integral part of the health education curriculum in all K-12 schools.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Michelle Katzow, MD, a pediatrician/obesity medicine specialist and assistant professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said the work highlights an often overlooked aspect of the modern American diet that may well be contributing to poor health outcomes in young people.

“It suggests that even as the science advances and we learn more about the adverse health effects of ultraprocessed foods, public health efforts to improve nutrition and food quality in children have not been successful,” she said in an interview. “This is because it is so hard for public health advocates to compete with the food industry, which stands to really benefit financially from hooking kids on processed foods that are not good for their health.”

Dr. Katzow added that the observed racial/ethnic disparities are not surprising in light of a growing body of evidence that racism exists in food marketing. “We need to put forward policies that regulate the food industry, particularly in relation to its most susceptible targets, our kids.”
 

Study details

The serial cross-sectional analysis used 24-hour dietary recall data from a nationally representative sample from 10 NHANES cycles for the range of 1999-2000 to 2017-2018. The weighted mean age of the cohort was 10.7 years and 49.1% were girls.

Among the subgroups of ultraprocessed foods, the estimated percentage of energy from ready-to-heat and ready-to-eat mixed dishes increased from 2.2% to 11.2% (difference 8.9%; 95%, CI, 7.7-10.2).

Energy from sweets and sweet snacks increased from 10.7% to 12.9% (difference 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.0-3.6), but the estimated percentage of energy decreased for sugar-sweetened beverages from 10.8% to 5.3% (difference −5.5%; 95% CI, −6.5 to −4.5).

In other categories, estimated energy intake from processed fats and oils, condiments, and sauces fell from 7.1% to 4.0% (difference −3.1%; 95% CI, −3.7 to −2.6, all P < .05 for trend).

Not surprisingly, ultraprocessed foods had an overall poorer nutrient profile than that of nonultraprocessed, although they often contained less saturated fat, and they also contained more carbohydrates, mostly from low-quality sources with added sugars and low levels of dietary fiber and protein.

And despite a higher total folate content in ultraprocessed foods because of fortification, higher-level consumers took in less total folate owing to their lower consumption of whole foods.

The authors cautioned that in addition to poor nutrient profiles, processing itself may harm health by changing the physical structure and chemical composition of food, which could lead to elevated glycemic response and reduced satiety. Furthermore, recent research has linked food additives such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, and artificial sweeteners to adverse metabolomic effects and obesity risk. Pointing to the recent success of efforts to reduce consumption of sugary beverages, Dr. Zhang said, “We need to mobilize the same energy and level of commitment when it comes to other unhealthy ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, doughnuts, and brownies.”

The trends identified by the Tufts study “are concerning and potentially have major public health significance,” according to an accompanying JAMA editorial.

“Better dietary assessment methods are needed to document trends and understand the unique role of ultraprocessed foods to inform future evidence-based policy and dietary recommendations,” wrote Katie A. Meyer, ScD, and Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, of the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

The editorialists share the authors’ view that “a conceptual advancement would be to consider the level and characteristics of processing as just one of multiple dimensions (including nutrients and food groups) used to classify foods as healthy or unhealthy.” They pointed out that the Pan American Health Organization already recommends targeting products that are ultraprocessed and high in concerning add-in nutrients.

They cautioned, however, that the classification of ultraprocessed foods will not be easy because it requires data on a full list of ingredients, and the effects of processing generally cannot be separated from the composite nutrients of ultraprocessed foods.

This presents a challenge for national food consumption research “given that most large epidemiological studies rely on food frequency questionnaires that lack the information necessary to classify processing levels,” they wrote.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the São Paulo Research Foundation. Coauthor Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist at Tufts University, disclosed support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Rockefeller Foundation as well as personal fees from several commercial companies. He has served on several scientific advisory boards and received royalties from UpToDate, all outside of the submitted work. Dr. Meyer reported a grant from choline manufacturer Balchem. Dr. Taillie reported funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Dr. Zhang had no disclosures. Dr. Katzow disclosed no competing interests.

In the 2 decades from 1999 to 2018, ultraprocessed foods consistently accounted for the majority of energy intake by American young people, a large cross-sectional study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data shows.

In young people aged 2-19 years, the estimated percentage of total energy from consumption of ultraprocessed foods increased from 61.4% to 67.0%, for a difference of 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.5-7.7, P < .001 for trend), according to Lu Wang, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, and colleagues.

In contrast, total energy from non- or minimally processed foods decreased from 28.8% to 23.5% (difference −5.3%, 95% CI, −7.5 to −3.2, P < .001 for trend).

“The estimated percentage of energy consumed from ultraprocessed foods increased from 1999 to 2018, with an increasing trend in ready-to-heat and -eat mixed dishes and a decreasing trend in sugar-sweetened beverages,” the authors wrote. The report was published online Aug. 10 in JAMA.

The findings held regardless of the educational and socioeconomic status of the children’s parents.

Significant disparities by race and ethnicity emerged, however, with the ultraprocessed food phenomenon more marked in non-Hispanic Black youths and Mexican-American youths than in their non-Hispanic White counterparts. “Targeted marketing of junk foods toward racial/ethnic minority youths may partly contribute to such differences,” the authors wrote. “However, persistently lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods among Mexican-American youths may reflect more home cooking among Hispanic families.”

Among non-Hispanic Black youths consumption rose from 62.2% to 72.5% (difference 10.3%, 95% CI, 6.8-13.8) and among Mexican-American youths from 55.8% to 63.5% (difference 7.6%, 95% CI, 4.4-10.9). In non-Hispanic White youths intake rose from 63.4% to 68.6% (difference 5.2%, 95% CI, 2.1-8.3, P = .04 for trends).

In addition, a higher consumption of ultraprocessed foods among school-aged youths than among preschool children aged 2-5 years may reflect increased marketing, availability, and selection of ultraprocessed foods for older youths, the authors noted.

Food processing, with its potential adverse effects, may need to be considered as a food dimension in addition to nutrients and food groups in future dietary recommendations and food policies, they added.

“An increasing number of studies are showing a link between ultraprocessed food consumption and adverse health outcomes in children,” corresponding author Fang Fang Zhang, MD, PhD, Neely Family Professor and associate professor at Tufts’ Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, said in an interview. “Health care providers can play a larger role in encouraging patients – and their parents – to replace unhealthy ultraprocessed foods such as ultraprocessed sweet bakery products with healthy unprocessed or minimally processed foods in their diet such as less processed whole grains. “

In Dr. Zhang’s view, teachers also have a part to play in promoting nutrition literacy. “Schools can play an important role in empowering children with knowledge and skills to make healthy food choices,” she said. “Nutrition literacy should be an integral part of the health education curriculum in all K-12 schools.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Michelle Katzow, MD, a pediatrician/obesity medicine specialist and assistant professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said the work highlights an often overlooked aspect of the modern American diet that may well be contributing to poor health outcomes in young people.

“It suggests that even as the science advances and we learn more about the adverse health effects of ultraprocessed foods, public health efforts to improve nutrition and food quality in children have not been successful,” she said in an interview. “This is because it is so hard for public health advocates to compete with the food industry, which stands to really benefit financially from hooking kids on processed foods that are not good for their health.”

Dr. Katzow added that the observed racial/ethnic disparities are not surprising in light of a growing body of evidence that racism exists in food marketing. “We need to put forward policies that regulate the food industry, particularly in relation to its most susceptible targets, our kids.”
 

Study details

The serial cross-sectional analysis used 24-hour dietary recall data from a nationally representative sample from 10 NHANES cycles for the range of 1999-2000 to 2017-2018. The weighted mean age of the cohort was 10.7 years and 49.1% were girls.

Among the subgroups of ultraprocessed foods, the estimated percentage of energy from ready-to-heat and ready-to-eat mixed dishes increased from 2.2% to 11.2% (difference 8.9%; 95%, CI, 7.7-10.2).

Energy from sweets and sweet snacks increased from 10.7% to 12.9% (difference 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.0-3.6), but the estimated percentage of energy decreased for sugar-sweetened beverages from 10.8% to 5.3% (difference −5.5%; 95% CI, −6.5 to −4.5).

In other categories, estimated energy intake from processed fats and oils, condiments, and sauces fell from 7.1% to 4.0% (difference −3.1%; 95% CI, −3.7 to −2.6, all P < .05 for trend).

Not surprisingly, ultraprocessed foods had an overall poorer nutrient profile than that of nonultraprocessed, although they often contained less saturated fat, and they also contained more carbohydrates, mostly from low-quality sources with added sugars and low levels of dietary fiber and protein.

And despite a higher total folate content in ultraprocessed foods because of fortification, higher-level consumers took in less total folate owing to their lower consumption of whole foods.

The authors cautioned that in addition to poor nutrient profiles, processing itself may harm health by changing the physical structure and chemical composition of food, which could lead to elevated glycemic response and reduced satiety. Furthermore, recent research has linked food additives such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, and artificial sweeteners to adverse metabolomic effects and obesity risk. Pointing to the recent success of efforts to reduce consumption of sugary beverages, Dr. Zhang said, “We need to mobilize the same energy and level of commitment when it comes to other unhealthy ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, doughnuts, and brownies.”

The trends identified by the Tufts study “are concerning and potentially have major public health significance,” according to an accompanying JAMA editorial.

“Better dietary assessment methods are needed to document trends and understand the unique role of ultraprocessed foods to inform future evidence-based policy and dietary recommendations,” wrote Katie A. Meyer, ScD, and Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, of the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

The editorialists share the authors’ view that “a conceptual advancement would be to consider the level and characteristics of processing as just one of multiple dimensions (including nutrients and food groups) used to classify foods as healthy or unhealthy.” They pointed out that the Pan American Health Organization already recommends targeting products that are ultraprocessed and high in concerning add-in nutrients.

They cautioned, however, that the classification of ultraprocessed foods will not be easy because it requires data on a full list of ingredients, and the effects of processing generally cannot be separated from the composite nutrients of ultraprocessed foods.

This presents a challenge for national food consumption research “given that most large epidemiological studies rely on food frequency questionnaires that lack the information necessary to classify processing levels,” they wrote.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the São Paulo Research Foundation. Coauthor Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist at Tufts University, disclosed support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Rockefeller Foundation as well as personal fees from several commercial companies. He has served on several scientific advisory boards and received royalties from UpToDate, all outside of the submitted work. Dr. Meyer reported a grant from choline manufacturer Balchem. Dr. Taillie reported funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Dr. Zhang had no disclosures. Dr. Katzow disclosed no competing interests.

Asymptomatic pregnant women with no previous diagnosis of type 1 or 2 diabetes should be screened for gestational diabetes at 24 weeks’ gestation or later, according to an updated recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Pregnant individuals who develop gestational diabetes are at increased risk for complications including preeclampsia, fetal macrosomia, and neonatal hypoglycemia, as well as negative long-term outcomes for themselves and their children, wrote lead author Karina W. Davidson, PhD, of Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., and colleagues. The statement was published online in JAMA.

The B recommendation and I statement reflect “moderate certainty” that current evidence supports the recommendation in terms of harms versus benefits, and is consistent with the 2014 USPSTF recommendation.

The statement calls for a one-time screening using a glucose tolerance test at or after 24 weeks’ gestation. Although most screening in the United States takes place prior to 28 weeks’ gestation, it can be performed later in patients who begin prenatal care after 28 weeks’ gestation, according to the statement. Data on the harms and benefits of gestational diabetes screening prior to 24 weeks’ gestation are limited, the authors noted. Gestational diabetes was defined as diabetes that develops during pregnancy that is not clearly overt diabetes.

To update the 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review. In 45 prospective studies on the accuracy of gestational diabetes screening, several tests, included oral glucose challenge test, oral glucose tolerance test, and fasting plasma glucose using either a one- or two-step approach were accurate detectors of gestational diabetes; therefore, the USPSTF does not recommend a specific test.

In 13 trials on the impact of treating gestational diabetes on intermediate and health outcomes, treatment was associated with a reduced risk of outcomes, including primary cesarean delivery (but not total cesarean delivery) and preterm delivery, but not with a reduced risk of outcomes including preeclampsia, emergency cesarean delivery, induction of labor, or maternal birth trauma.

The task force also reviewed seven studies of harms associated with screening for gestational diabetes, including three on psychosocial harms, three on hospital experiences, and one of the odds of cesarean delivery after a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. No increase in anxiety or depression occurred following a positive diagnosis or false-positive test result, but data suggested that a gestational diabetes diagnosis may be associated with higher rates of cesarean delivery.

A total of 13 trials evaluated the harms associated with treatment of gestational diabetes, and found no association between treatment and increased risk of several outcomes including severe maternal hypoglycemia, low birth weight, and small for gestational age, and no effect was noted on the number of cesarean deliveries.

Evidence gaps that require additional research include randomized, controlled trials on the effects of gestational diabetes screening on health outcomes, as well as benefits versus harms of screening for pregnant individuals prior to 24 weeks, and studies on the effects of screening in subpopulations of race/ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic factors, according to the task force. Additional research also is needed in areas of maternal health outcomes, long-term outcomes, and the effect on outcomes of one-step versus two-step screening, the USPSTF said.

However, “screening for and detecting gestational diabetes provides a potential opportunity to control blood glucose levels (through lifestyle changes, pharmacological interventions, or both) and reduce the risk of macrosomia and LGA [large for gestational age] infants,” the task force wrote. “In turn, this can prevent associated complications such as primary cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, and [neonatal] ICU admissions.”
 

Support screening with counseling on risk reduction

The USPSTF recommendation is important at this time because “the prevalence of gestational diabetes is increasing secondary to rising rates of obesity,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“In 2014, based on a systematic review of literature, the USPSTF recommended screening all asymptomatic pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus [GDM] starting at 24 weeks’ gestation. The recommended gestational age for screening coincides with increasing insulin resistance during pregnancy with advancing gestational age,” Dr. Krishna said.

“An updated systematic review by the USPSTF concluded that existing literature continues to affirm current recommendations of universal screening for GDM at 24 weeks gestation or later. There continues, however, to be no consensus on the optimal approach to screening,” she noted.

“Screening can be performed as a two-step or one-step approach,” said Dr. Krishna. “The two-step approach is commonly used in the United States, and all pregnant women are first screened with a 50-gram oral glucose solution followed by a diagnostic test if they have a positive initial screening.

“Women with risk factors for diabetes, such as prior GDM, obesity, strong family history of diabetes, or history of fetal macrosomia, should be screened early in pregnancy for GDM and have the GDM screen repeated at 24 weeks’ gestation or later if normal in early pregnancy,” Dr. Krishna said. “Pregnant women should be counseled on the importance of diet and exercise and appropriate weight gain in pregnancy to reduce the risk of GDM. Overall, timely diagnosis of gestational diabetes is crucial to improving maternal and fetal pregnancy outcomes.”

The full recommendation statement is also available on the USPSTF website. The research was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no disclosures, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Asymptomatic pregnant women with no previous diagnosis of type 1 or 2 diabetes should be screened for gestational diabetes at 24 weeks’ gestation or later, according to an updated recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Pregnant individuals who develop gestational diabetes are at increased risk for complications including preeclampsia, fetal macrosomia, and neonatal hypoglycemia, as well as negative long-term outcomes for themselves and their children, wrote lead author Karina W. Davidson, PhD, of Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., and colleagues. The statement was published online in JAMA.

The B recommendation and I statement reflect “moderate certainty” that current evidence supports the recommendation in terms of harms versus benefits, and is consistent with the 2014 USPSTF recommendation.

The statement calls for a one-time screening using a glucose tolerance test at or after 24 weeks’ gestation. Although most screening in the United States takes place prior to 28 weeks’ gestation, it can be performed later in patients who begin prenatal care after 28 weeks’ gestation, according to the statement. Data on the harms and benefits of gestational diabetes screening prior to 24 weeks’ gestation are limited, the authors noted. Gestational diabetes was defined as diabetes that develops during pregnancy that is not clearly overt diabetes.

To update the 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review. In 45 prospective studies on the accuracy of gestational diabetes screening, several tests, included oral glucose challenge test, oral glucose tolerance test, and fasting plasma glucose using either a one- or two-step approach were accurate detectors of gestational diabetes; therefore, the USPSTF does not recommend a specific test.

In 13 trials on the impact of treating gestational diabetes on intermediate and health outcomes, treatment was associated with a reduced risk of outcomes, including primary cesarean delivery (but not total cesarean delivery) and preterm delivery, but not with a reduced risk of outcomes including preeclampsia, emergency cesarean delivery, induction of labor, or maternal birth trauma.

The task force also reviewed seven studies of harms associated with screening for gestational diabetes, including three on psychosocial harms, three on hospital experiences, and one of the odds of cesarean delivery after a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. No increase in anxiety or depression occurred following a positive diagnosis or false-positive test result, but data suggested that a gestational diabetes diagnosis may be associated with higher rates of cesarean delivery.

A total of 13 trials evaluated the harms associated with treatment of gestational diabetes, and found no association between treatment and increased risk of several outcomes including severe maternal hypoglycemia, low birth weight, and small for gestational age, and no effect was noted on the number of cesarean deliveries.

Evidence gaps that require additional research include randomized, controlled trials on the effects of gestational diabetes screening on health outcomes, as well as benefits versus harms of screening for pregnant individuals prior to 24 weeks, and studies on the effects of screening in subpopulations of race/ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic factors, according to the task force. Additional research also is needed in areas of maternal health outcomes, long-term outcomes, and the effect on outcomes of one-step versus two-step screening, the USPSTF said.

However, “screening for and detecting gestational diabetes provides a potential opportunity to control blood glucose levels (through lifestyle changes, pharmacological interventions, or both) and reduce the risk of macrosomia and LGA [large for gestational age] infants,” the task force wrote. “In turn, this can prevent associated complications such as primary cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, and [neonatal] ICU admissions.”
 

Support screening with counseling on risk reduction

The USPSTF recommendation is important at this time because “the prevalence of gestational diabetes is increasing secondary to rising rates of obesity,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“In 2014, based on a systematic review of literature, the USPSTF recommended screening all asymptomatic pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus [GDM] starting at 24 weeks’ gestation. The recommended gestational age for screening coincides with increasing insulin resistance during pregnancy with advancing gestational age,” Dr. Krishna said.

“An updated systematic review by the USPSTF concluded that existing literature continues to affirm current recommendations of universal screening for GDM at 24 weeks gestation or later. There continues, however, to be no consensus on the optimal approach to screening,” she noted.

“Screening can be performed as a two-step or one-step approach,” said Dr. Krishna. “The two-step approach is commonly used in the United States, and all pregnant women are first screened with a 50-gram oral glucose solution followed by a diagnostic test if they have a positive initial screening.

“Women with risk factors for diabetes, such as prior GDM, obesity, strong family history of diabetes, or history of fetal macrosomia, should be screened early in pregnancy for GDM and have the GDM screen repeated at 24 weeks’ gestation or later if normal in early pregnancy,” Dr. Krishna said. “Pregnant women should be counseled on the importance of diet and exercise and appropriate weight gain in pregnancy to reduce the risk of GDM. Overall, timely diagnosis of gestational diabetes is crucial to improving maternal and fetal pregnancy outcomes.”

The full recommendation statement is also available on the USPSTF website. The research was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no disclosures, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Asymptomatic pregnant women with no previous diagnosis of type 1 or 2 diabetes should be screened for gestational diabetes at 24 weeks’ gestation or later, according to an updated recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Pregnant individuals who develop gestational diabetes are at increased risk for complications including preeclampsia, fetal macrosomia, and neonatal hypoglycemia, as well as negative long-term outcomes for themselves and their children, wrote lead author Karina W. Davidson, PhD, of Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., and colleagues. The statement was published online in JAMA.

The B recommendation and I statement reflect “moderate certainty” that current evidence supports the recommendation in terms of harms versus benefits, and is consistent with the 2014 USPSTF recommendation.

The statement calls for a one-time screening using a glucose tolerance test at or after 24 weeks’ gestation. Although most screening in the United States takes place prior to 28 weeks’ gestation, it can be performed later in patients who begin prenatal care after 28 weeks’ gestation, according to the statement. Data on the harms and benefits of gestational diabetes screening prior to 24 weeks’ gestation are limited, the authors noted. Gestational diabetes was defined as diabetes that develops during pregnancy that is not clearly overt diabetes.

To update the 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review. In 45 prospective studies on the accuracy of gestational diabetes screening, several tests, included oral glucose challenge test, oral glucose tolerance test, and fasting plasma glucose using either a one- or two-step approach were accurate detectors of gestational diabetes; therefore, the USPSTF does not recommend a specific test.

In 13 trials on the impact of treating gestational diabetes on intermediate and health outcomes, treatment was associated with a reduced risk of outcomes, including primary cesarean delivery (but not total cesarean delivery) and preterm delivery, but not with a reduced risk of outcomes including preeclampsia, emergency cesarean delivery, induction of labor, or maternal birth trauma.

The task force also reviewed seven studies of harms associated with screening for gestational diabetes, including three on psychosocial harms, three on hospital experiences, and one of the odds of cesarean delivery after a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. No increase in anxiety or depression occurred following a positive diagnosis or false-positive test result, but data suggested that a gestational diabetes diagnosis may be associated with higher rates of cesarean delivery.

A total of 13 trials evaluated the harms associated with treatment of gestational diabetes, and found no association between treatment and increased risk of several outcomes including severe maternal hypoglycemia, low birth weight, and small for gestational age, and no effect was noted on the number of cesarean deliveries.

Evidence gaps that require additional research include randomized, controlled trials on the effects of gestational diabetes screening on health outcomes, as well as benefits versus harms of screening for pregnant individuals prior to 24 weeks, and studies on the effects of screening in subpopulations of race/ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic factors, according to the task force. Additional research also is needed in areas of maternal health outcomes, long-term outcomes, and the effect on outcomes of one-step versus two-step screening, the USPSTF said.

However, “screening for and detecting gestational diabetes provides a potential opportunity to control blood glucose levels (through lifestyle changes, pharmacological interventions, or both) and reduce the risk of macrosomia and LGA [large for gestational age] infants,” the task force wrote. “In turn, this can prevent associated complications such as primary cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, and [neonatal] ICU admissions.”
 

Support screening with counseling on risk reduction

The USPSTF recommendation is important at this time because “the prevalence of gestational diabetes is increasing secondary to rising rates of obesity,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“In 2014, based on a systematic review of literature, the USPSTF recommended screening all asymptomatic pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus [GDM] starting at 24 weeks’ gestation. The recommended gestational age for screening coincides with increasing insulin resistance during pregnancy with advancing gestational age,” Dr. Krishna said.

“An updated systematic review by the USPSTF concluded that existing literature continues to affirm current recommendations of universal screening for GDM at 24 weeks gestation or later. There continues, however, to be no consensus on the optimal approach to screening,” she noted.

“Screening can be performed as a two-step or one-step approach,” said Dr. Krishna. “The two-step approach is commonly used in the United States, and all pregnant women are first screened with a 50-gram oral glucose solution followed by a diagnostic test if they have a positive initial screening.

“Women with risk factors for diabetes, such as prior GDM, obesity, strong family history of diabetes, or history of fetal macrosomia, should be screened early in pregnancy for GDM and have the GDM screen repeated at 24 weeks’ gestation or later if normal in early pregnancy,” Dr. Krishna said. “Pregnant women should be counseled on the importance of diet and exercise and appropriate weight gain in pregnancy to reduce the risk of GDM. Overall, timely diagnosis of gestational diabetes is crucial to improving maternal and fetal pregnancy outcomes.”

The full recommendation statement is also available on the USPSTF website. The research was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no disclosures, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Cardiologist Samirkumar J. Shah, MD, was sentenced to 78 months in prison after his conviction on two counts of federal health care fraud involving more than $13 million.

Instants/Getty Images

As part of his sentence, Dr. Shah, 58, of Fox Chapel, Pa., must pay $1.7 million in restitution and other penalties and undergo 3 years of supervised release after prison.

“Dr. Shah risked the health of his patients so he could make millions of dollars through unnecessary procedures, and lied and fabricated records for years to perpetuate his fraud scheme,” acting U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Kaufman said in an Aug. 5 statement from the Department of Justice.

As previously reported, Dr. Shah was convicted June 14, 2019, of submitting fraudulent claims to private and federal insurance programs between 2008 and 2013 for external counterpulsation (ECP) therapy, a lower limb compression treatment approved for patients with coronary artery disease and refractory angina.

Dr. Shah, however, advertised ECP as the “fountain of youth,” claimed it made patients “younger and smarter,” and offered the treatment for conditions such as obesity, hypertension, hypotension, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction.

Patients were required to undergo diagnostic ultrasounds as a precautionary measure prior to starting ECP, but witness testimony established that Dr. Shah did not review any of the imaging before approving new patients for ECP, placing his patients at risk for serious injury or even death, the DOJ stated.

The evidence also showed that Dr. Shah double-billed insurers, routinely submitted fabricated patient files, and made false statements concerning his practice, patient population, recording keeping, and compliance with coverage guidelines, the government said.

During the scheme, Dr. Shah submitted ECP-related claims for Medicare Part B, UPMC Health Plan, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Gateway Health Plan beneficiaries totalling more than $13 million and received reimbursement payments in excess of $3.5 million.

“Rather than upholding the oath he swore and providing care for patients who trusted him, this defendant misled patients and drained critical Medicaid funds from families who needed it,” said Attorney General Josh Shapiro. “We will not let anyone put their patients’ lives at risk for a profit.”

“Today’s sentence holds Mr. Shah accountable for his appalling actions,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “Mr. Shah used his position as a doctor to illegally profit from a health care program paid for by taxpayers. Fraud of this magnitude will not be tolerated.”

Dr. Shah has been in custody since July 15, 2021, after skipping out on his original July 14 sentencing date. The Tribune-Review reported that Dr. Shah filed a last-minute request for a continuance, claiming he had an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and was advised by his doctor that he needed “strict bedrest for at least 6 weeks.”

Dr. Shah reportedly turned himself after presiding U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone denied the motion and issued an arrest warrant.

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

Cardiologist Samirkumar J. Shah, MD, was sentenced to 78 months in prison after his conviction on two counts of federal health care fraud involving more than $13 million.

Instants/Getty Images

As part of his sentence, Dr. Shah, 58, of Fox Chapel, Pa., must pay $1.7 million in restitution and other penalties and undergo 3 years of supervised release after prison.

“Dr. Shah risked the health of his patients so he could make millions of dollars through unnecessary procedures, and lied and fabricated records for years to perpetuate his fraud scheme,” acting U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Kaufman said in an Aug. 5 statement from the Department of Justice.

As previously reported, Dr. Shah was convicted June 14, 2019, of submitting fraudulent claims to private and federal insurance programs between 2008 and 2013 for external counterpulsation (ECP) therapy, a lower limb compression treatment approved for patients with coronary artery disease and refractory angina.

Dr. Shah, however, advertised ECP as the “fountain of youth,” claimed it made patients “younger and smarter,” and offered the treatment for conditions such as obesity, hypertension, hypotension, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction.

Patients were required to undergo diagnostic ultrasounds as a precautionary measure prior to starting ECP, but witness testimony established that Dr. Shah did not review any of the imaging before approving new patients for ECP, placing his patients at risk for serious injury or even death, the DOJ stated.

The evidence also showed that Dr. Shah double-billed insurers, routinely submitted fabricated patient files, and made false statements concerning his practice, patient population, recording keeping, and compliance with coverage guidelines, the government said.

During the scheme, Dr. Shah submitted ECP-related claims for Medicare Part B, UPMC Health Plan, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Gateway Health Plan beneficiaries totalling more than $13 million and received reimbursement payments in excess of $3.5 million.

“Rather than upholding the oath he swore and providing care for patients who trusted him, this defendant misled patients and drained critical Medicaid funds from families who needed it,” said Attorney General Josh Shapiro. “We will not let anyone put their patients’ lives at risk for a profit.”

“Today’s sentence holds Mr. Shah accountable for his appalling actions,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “Mr. Shah used his position as a doctor to illegally profit from a health care program paid for by taxpayers. Fraud of this magnitude will not be tolerated.”

Dr. Shah has been in custody since July 15, 2021, after skipping out on his original July 14 sentencing date. The Tribune-Review reported that Dr. Shah filed a last-minute request for a continuance, claiming he had an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and was advised by his doctor that he needed “strict bedrest for at least 6 weeks.”

Dr. Shah reportedly turned himself after presiding U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone denied the motion and issued an arrest warrant.

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

Cardiologist Samirkumar J. Shah, MD, was sentenced to 78 months in prison after his conviction on two counts of federal health care fraud involving more than $13 million.

Instants/Getty Images

As part of his sentence, Dr. Shah, 58, of Fox Chapel, Pa., must pay $1.7 million in restitution and other penalties and undergo 3 years of supervised release after prison.

“Dr. Shah risked the health of his patients so he could make millions of dollars through unnecessary procedures, and lied and fabricated records for years to perpetuate his fraud scheme,” acting U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Kaufman said in an Aug. 5 statement from the Department of Justice.

As previously reported, Dr. Shah was convicted June 14, 2019, of submitting fraudulent claims to private and federal insurance programs between 2008 and 2013 for external counterpulsation (ECP) therapy, a lower limb compression treatment approved for patients with coronary artery disease and refractory angina.

Dr. Shah, however, advertised ECP as the “fountain of youth,” claimed it made patients “younger and smarter,” and offered the treatment for conditions such as obesity, hypertension, hypotension, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction.

Patients were required to undergo diagnostic ultrasounds as a precautionary measure prior to starting ECP, but witness testimony established that Dr. Shah did not review any of the imaging before approving new patients for ECP, placing his patients at risk for serious injury or even death, the DOJ stated.

The evidence also showed that Dr. Shah double-billed insurers, routinely submitted fabricated patient files, and made false statements concerning his practice, patient population, recording keeping, and compliance with coverage guidelines, the government said.

During the scheme, Dr. Shah submitted ECP-related claims for Medicare Part B, UPMC Health Plan, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Gateway Health Plan beneficiaries totalling more than $13 million and received reimbursement payments in excess of $3.5 million.

“Rather than upholding the oath he swore and providing care for patients who trusted him, this defendant misled patients and drained critical Medicaid funds from families who needed it,” said Attorney General Josh Shapiro. “We will not let anyone put their patients’ lives at risk for a profit.”

“Today’s sentence holds Mr. Shah accountable for his appalling actions,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “Mr. Shah used his position as a doctor to illegally profit from a health care program paid for by taxpayers. Fraud of this magnitude will not be tolerated.”

Dr. Shah has been in custody since July 15, 2021, after skipping out on his original July 14 sentencing date. The Tribune-Review reported that Dr. Shah filed a last-minute request for a continuance, claiming he had an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and was advised by his doctor that he needed “strict bedrest for at least 6 weeks.”

Dr. Shah reportedly turned himself after presiding U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone denied the motion and issued an arrest warrant.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

Aerobic exercise may help reduce blood pressure in patients whose hypertension responds poorly to medications, a new study suggests.

A randomized controlled clinical trial showed that patients with resistant hypertension assigned to a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training program had lower blood pressure compared with patients who received usual care.

“Resistant hypertension persists as a big clinical challenge because the available treatment options to lower blood pressure in this clinical population, namely drugs and renal denervation, show limited success,” Fernando Ribeiro, PhD, University of Aveiro, Portugal, told this news organization. “Aerobic exercise was safe and associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction in 24-hour, daytime ambulatory, and office blood pressure.”

The findings were published online August 4 in JAMA Cardiology.

The researchers enrolled 53 patients aged 40-75 years with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension in this prospective, single-blinded trial. Nearly half (24) were women.

Resistant hypertension was defined as having a “mean systolic BP of 130 mm Hg or greater on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and/or 135 mm Hg or greater during daytime hours while taking maximally tolerated doses of at least 3 antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, or to have a controlled BP while taking 4 or more antihypertensive agents.”

From March 2017 to December 2019 at two sites in Portugal, 26 patients were randomly assigned to a 12-week aerobic exercise training program involving three 40-minute supervised sessions per week in addition to usual care. Another 27 patients in the control group were allocated to receive usual care only.

24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -12.8 to -1.4; P = .02) in patients in the exercise group compared with the control group. In the exercise group, there were additional reductions of:

• -5.1 mm Hg of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.3; P = .001)
• -8.4 mm Hg of daytime systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -14.3 to -2.5, P = .006)
• -5.7 mm Hg of daytime diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -9.0 to -2.4; P = .001)
• -10.0 mm Hg of office systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -17.6 to -2.5; P = .01)

Additionally, a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (5.05 mL/kg per minute of oxygen consumption; 95% CI, 3.5-6.6; P < .001) was observed in the exercise group compared with the control group.

Although prior research has suggested that exercise may lower blood pressure, this study is particularly useful because it “outlines very specifically what types of exercise you can recommend,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Although important, exercise is “one part of the overall management of high blood pressure. If people are being prescribed medication, they should continue taking it and work on lifestyle changes like reducing salt intake and drinking in moderation,” added Dr. Lackland, who was not involved in the research.

Also commenting on the findings, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that there are many potential benefits from exercise training. “It might improve endothelial function, decrease vascular stiffness and nervous system reactivity to stress, and improve quality of life for patients,” she said.

The study has several limitations, including a small sample size and a patient population that mostly has “relatively mild hypertension,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said, adding, “We don’t know whether these findings will apply to patients with more severe hypertension.”

It would also have been helpful if investigators monitored patient adherence to prescribed medications through urine or blood samples rather than a questionnaire, and to measure nighttime blood pressure, which is a more important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, said Dr. Vongpatanasin, who was not associated with the research.

Moving forward, it will be important to “investigate why some patients are nonresponders to the exercise intervention and why some are super-responders,” study author Dr. Ribeiro said.

Dr. Ribeiro, Dr. Lackland, and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This study was funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund Operational Competitiveness Factors Program (COMPETE) and by the Portuguese government through the Foundation for Science and Technology. The funders had no role in the study.

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

Aerobic exercise may help reduce blood pressure in patients whose hypertension responds poorly to medications, a new study suggests.

A randomized controlled clinical trial showed that patients with resistant hypertension assigned to a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training program had lower blood pressure compared with patients who received usual care.

“Resistant hypertension persists as a big clinical challenge because the available treatment options to lower blood pressure in this clinical population, namely drugs and renal denervation, show limited success,” Fernando Ribeiro, PhD, University of Aveiro, Portugal, told this news organization. “Aerobic exercise was safe and associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction in 24-hour, daytime ambulatory, and office blood pressure.”

The findings were published online August 4 in JAMA Cardiology.

The researchers enrolled 53 patients aged 40-75 years with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension in this prospective, single-blinded trial. Nearly half (24) were women.

Resistant hypertension was defined as having a “mean systolic BP of 130 mm Hg or greater on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and/or 135 mm Hg or greater during daytime hours while taking maximally tolerated doses of at least 3 antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, or to have a controlled BP while taking 4 or more antihypertensive agents.”

From March 2017 to December 2019 at two sites in Portugal, 26 patients were randomly assigned to a 12-week aerobic exercise training program involving three 40-minute supervised sessions per week in addition to usual care. Another 27 patients in the control group were allocated to receive usual care only.

24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -12.8 to -1.4; P = .02) in patients in the exercise group compared with the control group. In the exercise group, there were additional reductions of:

• -5.1 mm Hg of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.3; P = .001)
• -8.4 mm Hg of daytime systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -14.3 to -2.5, P = .006)
• -5.7 mm Hg of daytime diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -9.0 to -2.4; P = .001)
• -10.0 mm Hg of office systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -17.6 to -2.5; P = .01)

Additionally, a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (5.05 mL/kg per minute of oxygen consumption; 95% CI, 3.5-6.6; P < .001) was observed in the exercise group compared with the control group.

Although prior research has suggested that exercise may lower blood pressure, this study is particularly useful because it “outlines very specifically what types of exercise you can recommend,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Although important, exercise is “one part of the overall management of high blood pressure. If people are being prescribed medication, they should continue taking it and work on lifestyle changes like reducing salt intake and drinking in moderation,” added Dr. Lackland, who was not involved in the research.

Also commenting on the findings, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that there are many potential benefits from exercise training. “It might improve endothelial function, decrease vascular stiffness and nervous system reactivity to stress, and improve quality of life for patients,” she said.

The study has several limitations, including a small sample size and a patient population that mostly has “relatively mild hypertension,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said, adding, “We don’t know whether these findings will apply to patients with more severe hypertension.”

It would also have been helpful if investigators monitored patient adherence to prescribed medications through urine or blood samples rather than a questionnaire, and to measure nighttime blood pressure, which is a more important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, said Dr. Vongpatanasin, who was not associated with the research.

Moving forward, it will be important to “investigate why some patients are nonresponders to the exercise intervention and why some are super-responders,” study author Dr. Ribeiro said.

Dr. Ribeiro, Dr. Lackland, and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This study was funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund Operational Competitiveness Factors Program (COMPETE) and by the Portuguese government through the Foundation for Science and Technology. The funders had no role in the study.

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

Aerobic exercise may help reduce blood pressure in patients whose hypertension responds poorly to medications, a new study suggests.

A randomized controlled clinical trial showed that patients with resistant hypertension assigned to a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training program had lower blood pressure compared with patients who received usual care.

“Resistant hypertension persists as a big clinical challenge because the available treatment options to lower blood pressure in this clinical population, namely drugs and renal denervation, show limited success,” Fernando Ribeiro, PhD, University of Aveiro, Portugal, told this news organization. “Aerobic exercise was safe and associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction in 24-hour, daytime ambulatory, and office blood pressure.”

The findings were published online August 4 in JAMA Cardiology.

The researchers enrolled 53 patients aged 40-75 years with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension in this prospective, single-blinded trial. Nearly half (24) were women.

Resistant hypertension was defined as having a “mean systolic BP of 130 mm Hg or greater on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and/or 135 mm Hg or greater during daytime hours while taking maximally tolerated doses of at least 3 antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, or to have a controlled BP while taking 4 or more antihypertensive agents.”

From March 2017 to December 2019 at two sites in Portugal, 26 patients were randomly assigned to a 12-week aerobic exercise training program involving three 40-minute supervised sessions per week in addition to usual care. Another 27 patients in the control group were allocated to receive usual care only.

24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -12.8 to -1.4; P = .02) in patients in the exercise group compared with the control group. In the exercise group, there were additional reductions of:

• -5.1 mm Hg of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.3; P = .001)
• -8.4 mm Hg of daytime systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -14.3 to -2.5, P = .006)
• -5.7 mm Hg of daytime diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -9.0 to -2.4; P = .001)
• -10.0 mm Hg of office systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -17.6 to -2.5; P = .01)

Additionally, a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (5.05 mL/kg per minute of oxygen consumption; 95% CI, 3.5-6.6; P < .001) was observed in the exercise group compared with the control group.

Although prior research has suggested that exercise may lower blood pressure, this study is particularly useful because it “outlines very specifically what types of exercise you can recommend,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Although important, exercise is “one part of the overall management of high blood pressure. If people are being prescribed medication, they should continue taking it and work on lifestyle changes like reducing salt intake and drinking in moderation,” added Dr. Lackland, who was not involved in the research.

Also commenting on the findings, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that there are many potential benefits from exercise training. “It might improve endothelial function, decrease vascular stiffness and nervous system reactivity to stress, and improve quality of life for patients,” she said.

The study has several limitations, including a small sample size and a patient population that mostly has “relatively mild hypertension,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said, adding, “We don’t know whether these findings will apply to patients with more severe hypertension.”

It would also have been helpful if investigators monitored patient adherence to prescribed medications through urine or blood samples rather than a questionnaire, and to measure nighttime blood pressure, which is a more important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, said Dr. Vongpatanasin, who was not associated with the research.

Moving forward, it will be important to “investigate why some patients are nonresponders to the exercise intervention and why some are super-responders,” study author Dr. Ribeiro said.

Dr. Ribeiro, Dr. Lackland, and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This study was funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund Operational Competitiveness Factors Program (COMPETE) and by the Portuguese government through the Foundation for Science and Technology. The funders had no role in the study.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if they’ve had the virus before. Yet many skeptics have held off getting the shots, believing that immunity generated by their previous infection will protect them if they should encounter the virus again. 

A new study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report pokes holes in this notion. It shows people who have recovered from COVID-19 but haven’t been vaccinated have more than double the risk of testing positive for the virus again, compared with someone who was vaccinated after an initial infection.

The study looked at 738 Kentucky residents who had an initial bout of COVID-19 in 2020. About 250 of them tested positive for COVID-19 a second time between May and July of 2021, when the Delta variant became dominant in the United States. 

The study matched each person who’d been reinfected with two people of the same sex and roughly the same age who had caught their initial COVID infection within the same week. The researchers then cross-matched those cases with data from Kentucky’s Immunization Registry.

They found that those who were unvaccinated had more than double the risk of being reinfected during the Delta wave. Partial vaccination appeared to have no significant impact on the risk of reinfection.

Among those who were reinfected, 20% were fully vaccinated, while 34% of those who did not get reinfected were fully vaccinated.

The study is observational, meaning it can’t show cause and effect; and the researchers had no information on the severity of the infections. Alyson Cavanaugh, PhD, a member of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service who led the study, said it is possible that some of the people who tested positive a second time had asymptomatic infections that were picked up through routine screening.

Still, the study backs up previous research and suggests that vaccination offers important additional protection.

“Our laboratory studies have shown that there’s an added benefit of vaccine for people who’ve had previous COVID-19. This is a real-world, epidemiologic study that found that among people who’d previously already had COVID-19, those who were vaccinated had lower odds of being reinfected,” Dr. Cavanaugh said.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, in a written media statement. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

In a White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing in May, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, explained why vaccines create stronger immunity than infection. He highlighted new research showing that two doses of an mRNA vaccine produce levels of neutralizing antibodies that are up to 10 times higher than the levels found in the blood of people who’ve recovered from COVID-19. Vaccines also enhance B cells and T cells in people who’ve recovered from COVID-19, which broadens the spectrum of protection and helps to fend off variants.

The study has some important limitations, which the authors acknowledged. The first is that second infections weren’t confirmed with genetic sequencing, so the researchers couldn’t definitively tell if a person tested positive a second time because they caught a new virus, or if they were somehow still shedding virus from their first infection. Given that the tests were at least 5 months apart, though, the researchers think reinfection is the most likely explanation.

Another bias in the study could have something to do with vaccination. Vaccinated people may have been less likely to be tested for COVID-19 after their vaccines, so the association or reinfection with a lack of vaccination may be overestimated. 

Also, people who were vaccinated at federal sites or in another state were not logged in the state’s immunization registry, which may have skewed the data.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if they’ve had the virus before. Yet many skeptics have held off getting the shots, believing that immunity generated by their previous infection will protect them if they should encounter the virus again. 

A new study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report pokes holes in this notion. It shows people who have recovered from COVID-19 but haven’t been vaccinated have more than double the risk of testing positive for the virus again, compared with someone who was vaccinated after an initial infection.

The study looked at 738 Kentucky residents who had an initial bout of COVID-19 in 2020. About 250 of them tested positive for COVID-19 a second time between May and July of 2021, when the Delta variant became dominant in the United States. 

The study matched each person who’d been reinfected with two people of the same sex and roughly the same age who had caught their initial COVID infection within the same week. The researchers then cross-matched those cases with data from Kentucky’s Immunization Registry.

They found that those who were unvaccinated had more than double the risk of being reinfected during the Delta wave. Partial vaccination appeared to have no significant impact on the risk of reinfection.

Among those who were reinfected, 20% were fully vaccinated, while 34% of those who did not get reinfected were fully vaccinated.

The study is observational, meaning it can’t show cause and effect; and the researchers had no information on the severity of the infections. Alyson Cavanaugh, PhD, a member of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service who led the study, said it is possible that some of the people who tested positive a second time had asymptomatic infections that were picked up through routine screening.

Still, the study backs up previous research and suggests that vaccination offers important additional protection.

“Our laboratory studies have shown that there’s an added benefit of vaccine for people who’ve had previous COVID-19. This is a real-world, epidemiologic study that found that among people who’d previously already had COVID-19, those who were vaccinated had lower odds of being reinfected,” Dr. Cavanaugh said.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, in a written media statement. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

In a White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing in May, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, explained why vaccines create stronger immunity than infection. He highlighted new research showing that two doses of an mRNA vaccine produce levels of neutralizing antibodies that are up to 10 times higher than the levels found in the blood of people who’ve recovered from COVID-19. Vaccines also enhance B cells and T cells in people who’ve recovered from COVID-19, which broadens the spectrum of protection and helps to fend off variants.

The study has some important limitations, which the authors acknowledged. The first is that second infections weren’t confirmed with genetic sequencing, so the researchers couldn’t definitively tell if a person tested positive a second time because they caught a new virus, or if they were somehow still shedding virus from their first infection. Given that the tests were at least 5 months apart, though, the researchers think reinfection is the most likely explanation.

Another bias in the study could have something to do with vaccination. Vaccinated people may have been less likely to be tested for COVID-19 after their vaccines, so the association or reinfection with a lack of vaccination may be overestimated. 

Also, people who were vaccinated at federal sites or in another state were not logged in the state’s immunization registry, which may have skewed the data.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if they’ve had the virus before. Yet many skeptics have held off getting the shots, believing that immunity generated by their previous infection will protect them if they should encounter the virus again. 

A new study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report pokes holes in this notion. It shows people who have recovered from COVID-19 but haven’t been vaccinated have more than double the risk of testing positive for the virus again, compared with someone who was vaccinated after an initial infection.

The study looked at 738 Kentucky residents who had an initial bout of COVID-19 in 2020. About 250 of them tested positive for COVID-19 a second time between May and July of 2021, when the Delta variant became dominant in the United States. 

The study matched each person who’d been reinfected with two people of the same sex and roughly the same age who had caught their initial COVID infection within the same week. The researchers then cross-matched those cases with data from Kentucky’s Immunization Registry.

They found that those who were unvaccinated had more than double the risk of being reinfected during the Delta wave. Partial vaccination appeared to have no significant impact on the risk of reinfection.

Among those who were reinfected, 20% were fully vaccinated, while 34% of those who did not get reinfected were fully vaccinated.

The study is observational, meaning it can’t show cause and effect; and the researchers had no information on the severity of the infections. Alyson Cavanaugh, PhD, a member of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service who led the study, said it is possible that some of the people who tested positive a second time had asymptomatic infections that were picked up through routine screening.

Still, the study backs up previous research and suggests that vaccination offers important additional protection.

“Our laboratory studies have shown that there’s an added benefit of vaccine for people who’ve had previous COVID-19. This is a real-world, epidemiologic study that found that among people who’d previously already had COVID-19, those who were vaccinated had lower odds of being reinfected,” Dr. Cavanaugh said.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, in a written media statement. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

In a White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing in May, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, explained why vaccines create stronger immunity than infection. He highlighted new research showing that two doses of an mRNA vaccine produce levels of neutralizing antibodies that are up to 10 times higher than the levels found in the blood of people who’ve recovered from COVID-19. Vaccines also enhance B cells and T cells in people who’ve recovered from COVID-19, which broadens the spectrum of protection and helps to fend off variants.

The study has some important limitations, which the authors acknowledged. The first is that second infections weren’t confirmed with genetic sequencing, so the researchers couldn’t definitively tell if a person tested positive a second time because they caught a new virus, or if they were somehow still shedding virus from their first infection. Given that the tests were at least 5 months apart, though, the researchers think reinfection is the most likely explanation.

Another bias in the study could have something to do with vaccination. Vaccinated people may have been less likely to be tested for COVID-19 after their vaccines, so the association or reinfection with a lack of vaccination may be overestimated. 

Also, people who were vaccinated at federal sites or in another state were not logged in the state’s immunization registry, which may have skewed the data.

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

Nearly half of adults prescribed metformin after a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes have stopped taking it by 1 year, new data show.

SDI Productions/E+

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of administrative data from Alberta, Canada, during 2012-2017, also show that the fall-off in metformin adherence was most dramatic during the first 30 days, and in most cases, there was no concomitant substitution of another glucose-lowering drug.

While the majority with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were prescribed metformin as first-line therapy, patients started on other agents incurred far higher medication and health care costs.

The data were recently published online in Diabetic Medicine by David J. T. Campbell, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues.

“We realized that even if someone is prescribed metformin that doesn’t mean they’re staying on metformin even for a year ... the drop-off rate is really quite abrupt,” Dr. Campbell said in an interview. Most who discontinued had A1c levels above 7.5%, so it wasn’t that they no longer needed glucose-lowering medication, he noted.
 

People don’t understand chronic use; meds don’t make you feel better

One reason for the discontinuations, he said, is that patients might not realize they need to keep taking the medication.

“When a physician is seeing a person with newly diagnosed diabetes, I think it’s important to remember that they might not know the implications of having a chronic condition. A lot of times we’re quick to prescribe metformin and forget about it. ... Physicians might write a script for 3 months and three refills and not see the patient again for a year ... We may need to keep a closer eye on these folks and have more regular follow-up, and make sure they’re getting early diabetes education.”

Side effects are an issue, but not for most. “Any clinician who prescribes metformin knows there are side effects, such as upset stomach, diarrhea, and nausea. But certainly, it’s not half [who experience these]. ... A lot of people just aren’t accepting of having to take it lifelong, especially since they probably don’t feel any better on it,” Dr. Campbell said.  

James Flory, MD, an endocrinologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview that about 25% of patients taking metformin experience gastrointestinal side effects.

Moreover, he noted that the drop-off in adherence is also seen with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs that have fewer side effects than those of metformin. He pointed to a “striking example” of this, a 2011 randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and as reported by this news organization, showing overall rates of adherence to these medications was around 50%, even among people who had already had a myocardial infarction.   

“People really don’t want to be on these medications. ... They have an aversion to being medicalized and taking pills. If they’re not being pretty consistently prompted and reminded and urged to take them, I think people will find rationalizations, reasons for stopping. ... I think people want to handle things through lifestyle and not be on a drug,” noted Dr. Flory, who has published on the subject of metformin adherence.

“These drugs don’t make people feel better. None of them do. At best they don’t make you feel worse. You have to really believe in the chronic condition and believe that it’s hurting you and that you can’t handle it without the drugs to motivate you to keep taking them,” Dr. Flory explained.

Communication with the patient is key, he added.

“I don’t have empirical data to support this, but I feel it’s helpful to acknowledge the downsides to patients. I tell them to let me know [if they’re having side effects] and we’ll work on it. Don’t just stop taking the drug and never circle back.” At the same time, he added, “I think it’s important to emphasize metformin’s safety and effectiveness.”

For patients experiencing gastrointestinal side effects, options including switching to extended-release metformin or lowering the dose.

Also, while patients are typically advised to take metformin with food, some experience diarrhea when they do that and prefer to take it at bedtime than with dinner. “If that’s what works for people, that’s what they should do,” Dr. Flory advised.

“It doesn’t take a lot of time to emphasize to patients the safety and this level of flexibility and control they should be able to exercise over how much they take and when. These things should really help.”  
 

Metformin usually prescribed, but not always taken

Dr. Campbell and colleagues analyzed 17,932 individuals with incident type 2 diabetes diagnosed between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Overall, 89% received metformin monotherapy as their initial diabetes prescription, 7.6% started metformin in combination with another glucose-lowering drug, and 3.3% were prescribed a nonmetformin diabetes medication. (Those prescribed insulin as their first diabetes medication were excluded.) 

The most commonly coprescribed drugs with metformin were sulfonylureas (in 47%) and DPP-4 inhibitors (28%). Of those initiated with only nonmetformin medications, sulfonylureas were also the most common (53%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors second (21%).

The metformin prescribing rate of 89% reflects current guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted.

“In hypertension, clinicians weren’t really following the guidelines ... they were prescribing more expensive drugs than the guidelines say. ... We showed that in diabetes, contrary to hypertension, clinicians really are generally following the clinical practice guidelines. ... The vast majority who are started on metformin are started on monotherapy. That was reassuring to us. We’re not paying for a bunch of expensive drugs when metformin would do just as well,” he said.

However, the proportion who had been dispensed metformin to cover the prescribed number of days dropped by about 10% after 30 days, by a further 10% after 90 days, and yet again after 100 days, resulting in just 54% remaining on the drug by 1 year.

Factors associated with higher adherence included older age, presence of comorbidities, and highest versus lowest neighborhood income quintile.

Those who had been prescribed nonmetformin monotherapy had about twice the total health care costs of those initially prescribed metformin monotherapy. Higher health care costs were seen among patients who were younger, had lower incomes, had higher baseline A1c, had more comorbidities, and were men.

How will the newer type 2 diabetes drugs change prescribing?

Dr. Campbell noted that “a lot has changed since 2017. ... At least in Canada, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were supposed to be reserved as second-line agents in patients with cardiovascular disease, but more and more they’re being thought of as first-line agents in high-risk patients.”

“I suspect as those guidelines are transmitted to primary care colleagues who are doing the bulk of the prescribing we’ll see more and more uptake of these agents.”

Indeed, Dr. Flory said, “The metformin data at this point are very dated and the body of trials showing health benefits for it is actually very weak compared to the big trials that have been done for the newer agents, to the point where you can imagine a consensus gradually forming where people start to recommend something other than metformin for nearly everybody with type 2 diabetes. The cost implications are just huge, and I think the safety implications as well.”

According to Dr. Flory, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are fundamentally not as safe as metformin. I think they’re very safe drugs – large good studies have established that – but if you’re going to give drugs to a large number of people who are pretty healthy at baseline the safety standards have to be pretty high.”

Just the elevated risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis alone is reason for pause, Dr. Flory said. “Even though it’s manageable ... metformin just doesn’t have a safety problem like that. I’m very comfortable prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors, but If I’m going to give a drug to a million people and have nothing go wrong with any of them, that would be metformin, not an SGLT2 [inhibitor].”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues will be conducting a follow-up of prescribing data through 2019, which will of course include the newer agents. They’ll also investigate reasons for drug discontinuation and outcomes of those who discontinue versus continue metformin.

Dr. Campbell has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Flory consults for a legal firm on litigation related to insulin analog pricing issues, not for or pertaining to a specific company.

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

Nearly half of adults prescribed metformin after a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes have stopped taking it by 1 year, new data show.

SDI Productions/E+

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of administrative data from Alberta, Canada, during 2012-2017, also show that the fall-off in metformin adherence was most dramatic during the first 30 days, and in most cases, there was no concomitant substitution of another glucose-lowering drug.

While the majority with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were prescribed metformin as first-line therapy, patients started on other agents incurred far higher medication and health care costs.

The data were recently published online in Diabetic Medicine by David J. T. Campbell, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues.

“We realized that even if someone is prescribed metformin that doesn’t mean they’re staying on metformin even for a year ... the drop-off rate is really quite abrupt,” Dr. Campbell said in an interview. Most who discontinued had A1c levels above 7.5%, so it wasn’t that they no longer needed glucose-lowering medication, he noted.
 

People don’t understand chronic use; meds don’t make you feel better

One reason for the discontinuations, he said, is that patients might not realize they need to keep taking the medication.

“When a physician is seeing a person with newly diagnosed diabetes, I think it’s important to remember that they might not know the implications of having a chronic condition. A lot of times we’re quick to prescribe metformin and forget about it. ... Physicians might write a script for 3 months and three refills and not see the patient again for a year ... We may need to keep a closer eye on these folks and have more regular follow-up, and make sure they’re getting early diabetes education.”

Side effects are an issue, but not for most. “Any clinician who prescribes metformin knows there are side effects, such as upset stomach, diarrhea, and nausea. But certainly, it’s not half [who experience these]. ... A lot of people just aren’t accepting of having to take it lifelong, especially since they probably don’t feel any better on it,” Dr. Campbell said.  

James Flory, MD, an endocrinologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview that about 25% of patients taking metformin experience gastrointestinal side effects.

Moreover, he noted that the drop-off in adherence is also seen with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs that have fewer side effects than those of metformin. He pointed to a “striking example” of this, a 2011 randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and as reported by this news organization, showing overall rates of adherence to these medications was around 50%, even among people who had already had a myocardial infarction.   

“People really don’t want to be on these medications. ... They have an aversion to being medicalized and taking pills. If they’re not being pretty consistently prompted and reminded and urged to take them, I think people will find rationalizations, reasons for stopping. ... I think people want to handle things through lifestyle and not be on a drug,” noted Dr. Flory, who has published on the subject of metformin adherence.

“These drugs don’t make people feel better. None of them do. At best they don’t make you feel worse. You have to really believe in the chronic condition and believe that it’s hurting you and that you can’t handle it without the drugs to motivate you to keep taking them,” Dr. Flory explained.

Communication with the patient is key, he added.

“I don’t have empirical data to support this, but I feel it’s helpful to acknowledge the downsides to patients. I tell them to let me know [if they’re having side effects] and we’ll work on it. Don’t just stop taking the drug and never circle back.” At the same time, he added, “I think it’s important to emphasize metformin’s safety and effectiveness.”

For patients experiencing gastrointestinal side effects, options including switching to extended-release metformin or lowering the dose.

Also, while patients are typically advised to take metformin with food, some experience diarrhea when they do that and prefer to take it at bedtime than with dinner. “If that’s what works for people, that’s what they should do,” Dr. Flory advised.

“It doesn’t take a lot of time to emphasize to patients the safety and this level of flexibility and control they should be able to exercise over how much they take and when. These things should really help.”  
 

Metformin usually prescribed, but not always taken

Dr. Campbell and colleagues analyzed 17,932 individuals with incident type 2 diabetes diagnosed between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Overall, 89% received metformin monotherapy as their initial diabetes prescription, 7.6% started metformin in combination with another glucose-lowering drug, and 3.3% were prescribed a nonmetformin diabetes medication. (Those prescribed insulin as their first diabetes medication were excluded.) 

The most commonly coprescribed drugs with metformin were sulfonylureas (in 47%) and DPP-4 inhibitors (28%). Of those initiated with only nonmetformin medications, sulfonylureas were also the most common (53%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors second (21%).

The metformin prescribing rate of 89% reflects current guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted.

“In hypertension, clinicians weren’t really following the guidelines ... they were prescribing more expensive drugs than the guidelines say. ... We showed that in diabetes, contrary to hypertension, clinicians really are generally following the clinical practice guidelines. ... The vast majority who are started on metformin are started on monotherapy. That was reassuring to us. We’re not paying for a bunch of expensive drugs when metformin would do just as well,” he said.

However, the proportion who had been dispensed metformin to cover the prescribed number of days dropped by about 10% after 30 days, by a further 10% after 90 days, and yet again after 100 days, resulting in just 54% remaining on the drug by 1 year.

Factors associated with higher adherence included older age, presence of comorbidities, and highest versus lowest neighborhood income quintile.

Those who had been prescribed nonmetformin monotherapy had about twice the total health care costs of those initially prescribed metformin monotherapy. Higher health care costs were seen among patients who were younger, had lower incomes, had higher baseline A1c, had more comorbidities, and were men.

How will the newer type 2 diabetes drugs change prescribing?

Dr. Campbell noted that “a lot has changed since 2017. ... At least in Canada, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were supposed to be reserved as second-line agents in patients with cardiovascular disease, but more and more they’re being thought of as first-line agents in high-risk patients.”

“I suspect as those guidelines are transmitted to primary care colleagues who are doing the bulk of the prescribing we’ll see more and more uptake of these agents.”

Indeed, Dr. Flory said, “The metformin data at this point are very dated and the body of trials showing health benefits for it is actually very weak compared to the big trials that have been done for the newer agents, to the point where you can imagine a consensus gradually forming where people start to recommend something other than metformin for nearly everybody with type 2 diabetes. The cost implications are just huge, and I think the safety implications as well.”

According to Dr. Flory, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are fundamentally not as safe as metformin. I think they’re very safe drugs – large good studies have established that – but if you’re going to give drugs to a large number of people who are pretty healthy at baseline the safety standards have to be pretty high.”

Just the elevated risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis alone is reason for pause, Dr. Flory said. “Even though it’s manageable ... metformin just doesn’t have a safety problem like that. I’m very comfortable prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors, but If I’m going to give a drug to a million people and have nothing go wrong with any of them, that would be metformin, not an SGLT2 [inhibitor].”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues will be conducting a follow-up of prescribing data through 2019, which will of course include the newer agents. They’ll also investigate reasons for drug discontinuation and outcomes of those who discontinue versus continue metformin.

Dr. Campbell has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Flory consults for a legal firm on litigation related to insulin analog pricing issues, not for or pertaining to a specific company.

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

Nearly half of adults prescribed metformin after a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes have stopped taking it by 1 year, new data show.

SDI Productions/E+

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of administrative data from Alberta, Canada, during 2012-2017, also show that the fall-off in metformin adherence was most dramatic during the first 30 days, and in most cases, there was no concomitant substitution of another glucose-lowering drug.

While the majority with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were prescribed metformin as first-line therapy, patients started on other agents incurred far higher medication and health care costs.

The data were recently published online in Diabetic Medicine by David J. T. Campbell, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues.

“We realized that even if someone is prescribed metformin that doesn’t mean they’re staying on metformin even for a year ... the drop-off rate is really quite abrupt,” Dr. Campbell said in an interview. Most who discontinued had A1c levels above 7.5%, so it wasn’t that they no longer needed glucose-lowering medication, he noted.
 

People don’t understand chronic use; meds don’t make you feel better

One reason for the discontinuations, he said, is that patients might not realize they need to keep taking the medication.

“When a physician is seeing a person with newly diagnosed diabetes, I think it’s important to remember that they might not know the implications of having a chronic condition. A lot of times we’re quick to prescribe metformin and forget about it. ... Physicians might write a script for 3 months and three refills and not see the patient again for a year ... We may need to keep a closer eye on these folks and have more regular follow-up, and make sure they’re getting early diabetes education.”

Side effects are an issue, but not for most. “Any clinician who prescribes metformin knows there are side effects, such as upset stomach, diarrhea, and nausea. But certainly, it’s not half [who experience these]. ... A lot of people just aren’t accepting of having to take it lifelong, especially since they probably don’t feel any better on it,” Dr. Campbell said.  

James Flory, MD, an endocrinologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview that about 25% of patients taking metformin experience gastrointestinal side effects.

Moreover, he noted that the drop-off in adherence is also seen with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs that have fewer side effects than those of metformin. He pointed to a “striking example” of this, a 2011 randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and as reported by this news organization, showing overall rates of adherence to these medications was around 50%, even among people who had already had a myocardial infarction.   

“People really don’t want to be on these medications. ... They have an aversion to being medicalized and taking pills. If they’re not being pretty consistently prompted and reminded and urged to take them, I think people will find rationalizations, reasons for stopping. ... I think people want to handle things through lifestyle and not be on a drug,” noted Dr. Flory, who has published on the subject of metformin adherence.

“These drugs don’t make people feel better. None of them do. At best they don’t make you feel worse. You have to really believe in the chronic condition and believe that it’s hurting you and that you can’t handle it without the drugs to motivate you to keep taking them,” Dr. Flory explained.

Communication with the patient is key, he added.

“I don’t have empirical data to support this, but I feel it’s helpful to acknowledge the downsides to patients. I tell them to let me know [if they’re having side effects] and we’ll work on it. Don’t just stop taking the drug and never circle back.” At the same time, he added, “I think it’s important to emphasize metformin’s safety and effectiveness.”

For patients experiencing gastrointestinal side effects, options including switching to extended-release metformin or lowering the dose.

Also, while patients are typically advised to take metformin with food, some experience diarrhea when they do that and prefer to take it at bedtime than with dinner. “If that’s what works for people, that’s what they should do,” Dr. Flory advised.

“It doesn’t take a lot of time to emphasize to patients the safety and this level of flexibility and control they should be able to exercise over how much they take and when. These things should really help.”  
 

Metformin usually prescribed, but not always taken

Dr. Campbell and colleagues analyzed 17,932 individuals with incident type 2 diabetes diagnosed between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Overall, 89% received metformin monotherapy as their initial diabetes prescription, 7.6% started metformin in combination with another glucose-lowering drug, and 3.3% were prescribed a nonmetformin diabetes medication. (Those prescribed insulin as their first diabetes medication were excluded.) 

The most commonly coprescribed drugs with metformin were sulfonylureas (in 47%) and DPP-4 inhibitors (28%). Of those initiated with only nonmetformin medications, sulfonylureas were also the most common (53%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors second (21%).

The metformin prescribing rate of 89% reflects current guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted.

“In hypertension, clinicians weren’t really following the guidelines ... they were prescribing more expensive drugs than the guidelines say. ... We showed that in diabetes, contrary to hypertension, clinicians really are generally following the clinical practice guidelines. ... The vast majority who are started on metformin are started on monotherapy. That was reassuring to us. We’re not paying for a bunch of expensive drugs when metformin would do just as well,” he said.

However, the proportion who had been dispensed metformin to cover the prescribed number of days dropped by about 10% after 30 days, by a further 10% after 90 days, and yet again after 100 days, resulting in just 54% remaining on the drug by 1 year.

Factors associated with higher adherence included older age, presence of comorbidities, and highest versus lowest neighborhood income quintile.

Those who had been prescribed nonmetformin monotherapy had about twice the total health care costs of those initially prescribed metformin monotherapy. Higher health care costs were seen among patients who were younger, had lower incomes, had higher baseline A1c, had more comorbidities, and were men.

How will the newer type 2 diabetes drugs change prescribing?

Dr. Campbell noted that “a lot has changed since 2017. ... At least in Canada, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were supposed to be reserved as second-line agents in patients with cardiovascular disease, but more and more they’re being thought of as first-line agents in high-risk patients.”

“I suspect as those guidelines are transmitted to primary care colleagues who are doing the bulk of the prescribing we’ll see more and more uptake of these agents.”

Indeed, Dr. Flory said, “The metformin data at this point are very dated and the body of trials showing health benefits for it is actually very weak compared to the big trials that have been done for the newer agents, to the point where you can imagine a consensus gradually forming where people start to recommend something other than metformin for nearly everybody with type 2 diabetes. The cost implications are just huge, and I think the safety implications as well.”

According to Dr. Flory, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are fundamentally not as safe as metformin. I think they’re very safe drugs – large good studies have established that – but if you’re going to give drugs to a large number of people who are pretty healthy at baseline the safety standards have to be pretty high.”

Just the elevated risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis alone is reason for pause, Dr. Flory said. “Even though it’s manageable ... metformin just doesn’t have a safety problem like that. I’m very comfortable prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors, but If I’m going to give a drug to a million people and have nothing go wrong with any of them, that would be metformin, not an SGLT2 [inhibitor].”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues will be conducting a follow-up of prescribing data through 2019, which will of course include the newer agents. They’ll also investigate reasons for drug discontinuation and outcomes of those who discontinue versus continue metformin.

Dr. Campbell has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Flory consults for a legal firm on litigation related to insulin analog pricing issues, not for or pertaining to a specific company.

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

A retracted study on the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with COVID-19 continues to be cited nearly a year later, new research shows.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The study in question, published on May 1, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no increased risk for in-hospital death with the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Concerns about the veracity of the Surgisphere database used for the study, however, led to a June 4 retraction and to the June 13 retraction of a second study, published in the Lancet, that focused on hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.

Although the Surgisphere scandal caused a global reckoning of COVID-19 scientific studies, the new analysis identified 652 citations of the NEJM article as of May 31.

More than a third of the citations occurred in the first 2 months after the retraction, 54% were at least 3 months later, and 2.8% at least 6 months later. In May, 11 months after the article was retracted, it was cited 21 times, senior author Emily G. McDonald, MD, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues reported in a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In early May and June there were already more than 200 citations in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, so I do believe it was a highly influential article early on and had an impact on different types of studies or research taking place,” she said in an interview.

Dr. McDonald said she’s also “certain that it impacted patient care,” observing that when there are no guidelines available on how to manage patients, physicians will turn to the most recent evidence in the most reputable journals.

“In the case of ACE [inhibitors] and ARBs, although the study was based on fraudulent data, we were lucky that the overall message was in the end probably correct, but that might not have been the case for another study or dataset,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, concerns existed that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be harmful, increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors, which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells. The first randomized trial to examine the issue, BRACE CORONA, showed no clinical benefit to interrupting use of the agents in hospitalized patients. An observational study suggested ACE inhibitors may even be protective.

Of two high-profile retractions, McDonald said they chose to bypass the hydroxychloroquine study, which had an eye-popping Altmetric attention score of 23,084, compared with 3,727 for the NEJM paper, because it may have been cited for “other” reasons. “We wanted to focus less on the politics and more on the problem of retracted work.”

The team found that researchers across the globe were citing the retracted ACE/ARB paper (18.7% in the United States, 8.1% in Italy, and 44% other countries). Most citations were used to support a statement in the main text of a study, but in nearly 3% of cases, the data were incorporated into new analyses.

Just 17.6% of the studies cited or noted the retraction. “For sure, that was surprising to us. We suspected it, but our study confirmed it,” Dr. McDonald said.

Although retracted articles can be identified by a watermark or line of text, in some cases that can be easily missed, she noted. What’s more, not all citation software points out when a study has been retracted, a fate shared by the copyediting process.

“There are a lot of mechanisms in place and, in general, what’s happening is rare but there isn’t a perfect automated system solution to absolutely prevent this from happening,” she said. “It’s still subject to human error.”

The findings also have to be taken in the context of a rapidly emerging pandemic and the unprecedented torrent of scientific papers released over the past year.

“That might have contributed to why this happened, but the takeaway message is that this can happen despite our best efforts, and we need to challenge ourselves to come up with a system solution to prevent this from happening in the future,” Dr. McDonald said. “Current mechanisms are probably capturing 95% of it, but we need to do better.”

Limitations of the present analysis are that it was limited to the single retracted study; used only a single search engine, Google Scholar, to identify the citing works; and that additional citations may have been missed, the authors noted.

McDonald and coauthor Todd C. Lee, MD, report being signatories on a public letter calling for the retraction of the Surgisphere papers. Dr. Lee also reported receiving research support from Fonds De Recherche du Quebec-Sante during the conduct of the study.

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

A retracted study on the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with COVID-19 continues to be cited nearly a year later, new research shows.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The study in question, published on May 1, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no increased risk for in-hospital death with the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Concerns about the veracity of the Surgisphere database used for the study, however, led to a June 4 retraction and to the June 13 retraction of a second study, published in the Lancet, that focused on hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.

Although the Surgisphere scandal caused a global reckoning of COVID-19 scientific studies, the new analysis identified 652 citations of the NEJM article as of May 31.

More than a third of the citations occurred in the first 2 months after the retraction, 54% were at least 3 months later, and 2.8% at least 6 months later. In May, 11 months after the article was retracted, it was cited 21 times, senior author Emily G. McDonald, MD, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues reported in a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In early May and June there were already more than 200 citations in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, so I do believe it was a highly influential article early on and had an impact on different types of studies or research taking place,” she said in an interview.

Dr. McDonald said she’s also “certain that it impacted patient care,” observing that when there are no guidelines available on how to manage patients, physicians will turn to the most recent evidence in the most reputable journals.

“In the case of ACE [inhibitors] and ARBs, although the study was based on fraudulent data, we were lucky that the overall message was in the end probably correct, but that might not have been the case for another study or dataset,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, concerns existed that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be harmful, increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors, which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells. The first randomized trial to examine the issue, BRACE CORONA, showed no clinical benefit to interrupting use of the agents in hospitalized patients. An observational study suggested ACE inhibitors may even be protective.

Of two high-profile retractions, McDonald said they chose to bypass the hydroxychloroquine study, which had an eye-popping Altmetric attention score of 23,084, compared with 3,727 for the NEJM paper, because it may have been cited for “other” reasons. “We wanted to focus less on the politics and more on the problem of retracted work.”

The team found that researchers across the globe were citing the retracted ACE/ARB paper (18.7% in the United States, 8.1% in Italy, and 44% other countries). Most citations were used to support a statement in the main text of a study, but in nearly 3% of cases, the data were incorporated into new analyses.

Just 17.6% of the studies cited or noted the retraction. “For sure, that was surprising to us. We suspected it, but our study confirmed it,” Dr. McDonald said.

Although retracted articles can be identified by a watermark or line of text, in some cases that can be easily missed, she noted. What’s more, not all citation software points out when a study has been retracted, a fate shared by the copyediting process.

“There are a lot of mechanisms in place and, in general, what’s happening is rare but there isn’t a perfect automated system solution to absolutely prevent this from happening,” she said. “It’s still subject to human error.”

The findings also have to be taken in the context of a rapidly emerging pandemic and the unprecedented torrent of scientific papers released over the past year.

“That might have contributed to why this happened, but the takeaway message is that this can happen despite our best efforts, and we need to challenge ourselves to come up with a system solution to prevent this from happening in the future,” Dr. McDonald said. “Current mechanisms are probably capturing 95% of it, but we need to do better.”

Limitations of the present analysis are that it was limited to the single retracted study; used only a single search engine, Google Scholar, to identify the citing works; and that additional citations may have been missed, the authors noted.

McDonald and coauthor Todd C. Lee, MD, report being signatories on a public letter calling for the retraction of the Surgisphere papers. Dr. Lee also reported receiving research support from Fonds De Recherche du Quebec-Sante during the conduct of the study.

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

A retracted study on the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with COVID-19 continues to be cited nearly a year later, new research shows.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The study in question, published on May 1, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no increased risk for in-hospital death with the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Concerns about the veracity of the Surgisphere database used for the study, however, led to a June 4 retraction and to the June 13 retraction of a second study, published in the Lancet, that focused on hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.

Although the Surgisphere scandal caused a global reckoning of COVID-19 scientific studies, the new analysis identified 652 citations of the NEJM article as of May 31.

More than a third of the citations occurred in the first 2 months after the retraction, 54% were at least 3 months later, and 2.8% at least 6 months later. In May, 11 months after the article was retracted, it was cited 21 times, senior author Emily G. McDonald, MD, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues reported in a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In early May and June there were already more than 200 citations in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, so I do believe it was a highly influential article early on and had an impact on different types of studies or research taking place,” she said in an interview.

Dr. McDonald said she’s also “certain that it impacted patient care,” observing that when there are no guidelines available on how to manage patients, physicians will turn to the most recent evidence in the most reputable journals.

“In the case of ACE [inhibitors] and ARBs, although the study was based on fraudulent data, we were lucky that the overall message was in the end probably correct, but that might not have been the case for another study or dataset,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, concerns existed that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be harmful, increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors, which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells. The first randomized trial to examine the issue, BRACE CORONA, showed no clinical benefit to interrupting use of the agents in hospitalized patients. An observational study suggested ACE inhibitors may even be protective.

Of two high-profile retractions, McDonald said they chose to bypass the hydroxychloroquine study, which had an eye-popping Altmetric attention score of 23,084, compared with 3,727 for the NEJM paper, because it may have been cited for “other” reasons. “We wanted to focus less on the politics and more on the problem of retracted work.”

The team found that researchers across the globe were citing the retracted ACE/ARB paper (18.7% in the United States, 8.1% in Italy, and 44% other countries). Most citations were used to support a statement in the main text of a study, but in nearly 3% of cases, the data were incorporated into new analyses.

Just 17.6% of the studies cited or noted the retraction. “For sure, that was surprising to us. We suspected it, but our study confirmed it,” Dr. McDonald said.

Although retracted articles can be identified by a watermark or line of text, in some cases that can be easily missed, she noted. What’s more, not all citation software points out when a study has been retracted, a fate shared by the copyediting process.

“There are a lot of mechanisms in place and, in general, what’s happening is rare but there isn’t a perfect automated system solution to absolutely prevent this from happening,” she said. “It’s still subject to human error.”

The findings also have to be taken in the context of a rapidly emerging pandemic and the unprecedented torrent of scientific papers released over the past year.

“That might have contributed to why this happened, but the takeaway message is that this can happen despite our best efforts, and we need to challenge ourselves to come up with a system solution to prevent this from happening in the future,” Dr. McDonald said. “Current mechanisms are probably capturing 95% of it, but we need to do better.”

Limitations of the present analysis are that it was limited to the single retracted study; used only a single search engine, Google Scholar, to identify the citing works; and that additional citations may have been missed, the authors noted.

McDonald and coauthor Todd C. Lee, MD, report being signatories on a public letter calling for the retraction of the Surgisphere papers. Dr. Lee also reported receiving research support from Fonds De Recherche du Quebec-Sante during the conduct of the study.

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