Cardiology News

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Menopause linking menopausal symptoms to increased risk for cognitive impairment. I’d also like to discuss some of the recent studies that have addressed whether hot flashes are linked to increased risk for heart disease and other forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Given that 75%-80% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms, it’s undoubtedly a more complex relationship between hot flashes and these outcomes than a simple one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no question.

Increasing evidence shows that several additional factors are important, including the age at which the symptoms are occurring, the time since menopause, the severity of the symptoms, whether they co-occur with night sweats and sleep disruption, and the cardiovascular status of the woman.

Several studies suggest that women who have more severe hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms are more likely to have prevalent cardiovascular risk factors — hypertension, dyslipidemia, high body mass index, endothelial dysfunction — as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation and other measures.

It is quite plausible that hot flashes could be a marker for increased risk for cognitive impairment. But the question remains, are hot flashes associated with cognitive impairment independent of these other risk factors? It appears that the associations between hot flashes, vasomotor symptoms, and CVD, and other adverse outcomes, may be more likely when hot flashes persist after age 60 or are newly occurring in later menopause. In the Women’s Health Initiative observational study, the presence of hot flashes and vasomotor symptoms in early menopause was not linked to any increased risk for heart attack, stroke, total CVD, or all-cause mortality.

However, the onset of these symptoms, especially new onset of these symptoms after age 60 or in later menopause, was in fact linked to increased risk for CVD and all-cause mortality. With respect to cognitive impairment, if a woman is having hot flashes and night sweats with regular sleep disruption, performance on cognitive testing would not be as favorable as it would be in the absence of these symptoms.

This brings us to the new study in Menopause that included approximately 1300 Latino women in nine Latin American countries, with an average age of 55 years. Looking at the association between severe menopausal symptoms and cognitive impairment, researchers found that women with severe symptoms were more likely to have cognitive impairment.

Conversely, they found that the women who had a favorable CVD risk factor status (physically active, lower BMI, healthier) and were ever users of estrogen were less likely to have cognitive impairment.

Clearly, for estrogen therapy, we need randomized clinical trials of the presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms and cognitive and CVD outcomes. Such analyses are ongoing, and new randomized trials focused specifically on women in early menopause would be very beneficial.

At the present time, it’s important that we not alarm women about the associations seen in some of these studies because often they are not independent associations; they aren’t independent of other risk factors that are commonly linked to hot flashes and night sweats. There are many other complexities in the relationship between hot flashes and cognitive impairment.

We need to appreciate that women who have moderate to severe hot flashes (especially when associated with disrupted sleep) do have impaired quality of life. It’s important to treat these symptoms, especially in early menopause, and very effective hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available.

For women with symptoms that persist into later menopause or who have new onset of symptoms in later menopause, it’s important to prioritize cardiovascular health. For example, be more vigilant about behavioral lifestyle counseling to lower risk, and be even more aggressive in treating dyslipidemia and diabetes.

JoAnn E. Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

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

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

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

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

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

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

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

MADRID — Amycretin, a dual-pathway, oral weight loss drug, led to up to 13% body weight loss in participants with overweight or obesity according to phase 1, first-in-human study data presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 annual meeting.

Body weight loss was “remarkable for an orally delivered biologic,” said Agnes Gasiorek, PhD, senior clinical pharmacology specialist at Novo Nordisk, Måløv, Denmark, who presented the results. And “there was no plateauing of weight loss in the treatment period.”

The mean change in percentage body weight was –10.4% with amycretin 50 mg, –13.1% with amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and –1.2% with placebo after 12 weeks of treatment.

With respect to the primary endpoint, stepwise dose escalation demonstrated that all tested dose levels up to and including 2 × 50 mg over a 12-week escalation period were safe and tolerable, Dr. Gasiorek reported.

The adverse events were in line with what was expected from targeting these receptors, and no new safety signals appeared during the study, she added.
 

Dual Pathways

Amycretin is a novel protein-based unimolecular amylin combined with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and is the first oral formulation of this combination under development.

The two components are both known to reduce appetite and energy intake and increase satiety, said Dr. Gasiorek, but amylin is considered to potentially increase leptin sensitivity and GLP-1 RAs are known to increase insulin secretion and biosynthesis. Together, the two components improve insulin sensitivity, decrease glucagon secretion, and lead to acute delay in gastric emptying.

The single-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 1 study enrolled men and women aged 18-55 years (mean, 38-42 years across groups) with a body mass index of 25.0-39.9, without diabetes, and considered otherwise healthy. 

Participants were randomly assigned to receive to receive oral amycretin (n = 95) or placebo (n = 29) once a day for up to 12 weeks. Study arms comprised single-ascending dosing (increasing from 1 mg/d to 25 mg), and multiple-ascending dosing. The latter consisted of multiple ascending doses (from 3 to 12 mg) over 10 days and multiple ascending doses (stepwise dose escalation, from 3 mg up to a final dose of 2 × 50 mg) over 12 weeks. 

In her presentation at the EASD meeting, Dr. Gasiorek focused on results of the 12-week multiple ascending dose schedule with amycretin 50 mg (n = 16), amycretin 2 × 50 mg (n = 16), and placebo (n = 12). 

The primary endpoint of the study was the number of treatment-emergent adverse events, while the area under the amycretin plasma concentration time curve and the maximum plasma concentration of amycretin were secondary endpoints. 

The researchers also added percentage change in body weight after 12 weeks of treatment as an exploratory endpoint. 
 

Safety Findings of Multiple Dosing

A total of 242 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in the combined active and placebo groups and were of mild to moderate severity. 

Treatment-emergent adverse events were found in 75% of the amycretin 50 mg group, 93.8% of the amycretin 2 × 50 mg group, and 33.3% of placebo recipients.

“Most adverse events reported were mild to moderate in severity and related to gastrointestinal discomfort (nausea and vomiting) and occurred in a dose-proportional manner,” reported Dr. Gasiorek.

Gastrointestinal events were experienced by 50%, 87.5%, and 16.7% of participants receiving amycretin 50 mg, amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and placebo, respectively (112 in total). 

Decreased appetite was also found in 56.3%, 81.3%, and 16.7% of the amycretin 50 mg, amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and placebo groups, respectively.

Two serious adverse events occurred, one of which was acute cholecystitis and the other diabetic ketoacidosis; “however, the [latter] participant was found to have autoantibodies for beta cells before treatment and was later diagnosed with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gasiorek said.
 

Body Weight Reduction 

Participants on 50 mg amycretin lost an average of 10.4% of their body weight (estimated treatment difference vs placebo, –9.2; 95% CI, –12.0 to –6.5), whereas those on 2 × 50 mg amycretin lost 13.1% of their body weight (estimated treatment difference vs placebo, –11.8; 95% CI, –14.6 to –9.0). Placebo group participants lost 1.2% of their body weight over the 12 weeks. 

Although no plateauing of weight loss was seen, said Dr. Gasiorek, it is important to consider the relatively short treatment duration and the limited time on the final dose, which could potentially introduce bias.

To date, weight loss medications based on GLP-1 RA technology are injectables. A combination of the injectable amylin analogue cagrilintide and the GLP-1 RA semaglutide is also being explored as a subcutaneous treatment solution.

In a comment, Martin Holst Lange, MD, PhD, executive vice president of development at Novo Nordisk, said that “amycretin is the first treatment to harness the two distinct biological pathways stimulated by amylin and GLP-1 in a single molecule.”

The safety and tolerability profiles and the magnitude of weight loss support further development of amycretin in patients with overweight or obesity, said Dr. Lange, who noted that the company was awaiting data from the ongoing phase 1 trial with subcutaneous amycretin, expected in 2025.

Having heard the presentation, co-moderator Timo Müller, PhD, professor at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany, gave a considered response. “The drug was relatively well tolerated, with the typical GLP-1–induced GI [gastrointestinal] adverse effects being the most frequently reported.”

But he pointed out that questions remain. “We still need to know whether, at the given dose, the drug outperforms best-in-class drugs like semaglutide or tirzepatide at the highest approved doses. Furthermore, it warrants clarification if and to what extent the activation of the amylin receptor contributes to the shown effect and if and to what extent the glycemic benefits result from activation of the glucagon receptor (amylin improved glycemia by decreasing the secretion of glucagon). In any way, the current data remain friendly and support phase 2 development.” 
 

Oral Meds Could Bring Down Cost

Commenting on the data, Nerys Astbury, PhD, associate professor of diet and obesity at Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, England, said, “It is important to note that whilst the participants in this trial did lose weight over the 12-week study — and this was statistically more weight than in the placebo group — this study was not designed or powered to detect differences in body weight over longer periods of time.” 

If the results are confirmed in future studies, amycretin might widen the treatment options and introduce competition, probably bringing down the costs in the longer-term, said Dr. Astbury, who welcomes the prospect. 

“It is possible that some people might find the oral medications more acceptable than the injectable GLP-1 agonists currently available,” she said. And the current options are expensive, “which raises challenges to a taxpayer-funded health system like the NHS [National Health Service].” 

“Furthermore, if the growing number of oral obesity medications prove safe, tolerable, and effective ... they are likely to significantly reduce the risks of developing many complications of obesity.”

Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine and honorary consultant, University of Glasgow, Scotland, agreed. “The more medicines coming forward to treat obesity, the better,” he said. In particular, oral medications would be more easily available, and cheaper, “for the many millions around the world struggling with obesity and its complications.”

Dr. Gasiorek declares she is an employee of and a shareholder in Novo Nordisk. Dr. Astbury declares no financial disclosures. Dr. Sattar declares having consulted for several companies that make diabetes medicines but also contributed to several lifestyle trials. For Novo Nordisk, he has consulted for the company on advisory boards, but not on any of their weight loss drug trial committees, and he is on the steering committee for the ZEUS trial, which is not a weight loss trial product but an anti-inflammatory. He does not have any shares for any product in health etc. He declares consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and grant support paid to his university from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Müller received financial support or an honorarium from Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mercodia; he further holds stocks at Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly and is cofounder of Bluewater Biosciences.

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

MADRID — Amycretin, a dual-pathway, oral weight loss drug, led to up to 13% body weight loss in participants with overweight or obesity according to phase 1, first-in-human study data presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 annual meeting.

Body weight loss was “remarkable for an orally delivered biologic,” said Agnes Gasiorek, PhD, senior clinical pharmacology specialist at Novo Nordisk, Måløv, Denmark, who presented the results. And “there was no plateauing of weight loss in the treatment period.”

The mean change in percentage body weight was –10.4% with amycretin 50 mg, –13.1% with amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and –1.2% with placebo after 12 weeks of treatment.

With respect to the primary endpoint, stepwise dose escalation demonstrated that all tested dose levels up to and including 2 × 50 mg over a 12-week escalation period were safe and tolerable, Dr. Gasiorek reported.

The adverse events were in line with what was expected from targeting these receptors, and no new safety signals appeared during the study, she added.
 

Dual Pathways

Amycretin is a novel protein-based unimolecular amylin combined with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and is the first oral formulation of this combination under development.

The two components are both known to reduce appetite and energy intake and increase satiety, said Dr. Gasiorek, but amylin is considered to potentially increase leptin sensitivity and GLP-1 RAs are known to increase insulin secretion and biosynthesis. Together, the two components improve insulin sensitivity, decrease glucagon secretion, and lead to acute delay in gastric emptying.

The single-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 1 study enrolled men and women aged 18-55 years (mean, 38-42 years across groups) with a body mass index of 25.0-39.9, without diabetes, and considered otherwise healthy. 

Participants were randomly assigned to receive to receive oral amycretin (n = 95) or placebo (n = 29) once a day for up to 12 weeks. Study arms comprised single-ascending dosing (increasing from 1 mg/d to 25 mg), and multiple-ascending dosing. The latter consisted of multiple ascending doses (from 3 to 12 mg) over 10 days and multiple ascending doses (stepwise dose escalation, from 3 mg up to a final dose of 2 × 50 mg) over 12 weeks. 

In her presentation at the EASD meeting, Dr. Gasiorek focused on results of the 12-week multiple ascending dose schedule with amycretin 50 mg (n = 16), amycretin 2 × 50 mg (n = 16), and placebo (n = 12). 

The primary endpoint of the study was the number of treatment-emergent adverse events, while the area under the amycretin plasma concentration time curve and the maximum plasma concentration of amycretin were secondary endpoints. 

The researchers also added percentage change in body weight after 12 weeks of treatment as an exploratory endpoint. 
 

Safety Findings of Multiple Dosing

A total of 242 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in the combined active and placebo groups and were of mild to moderate severity. 

Treatment-emergent adverse events were found in 75% of the amycretin 50 mg group, 93.8% of the amycretin 2 × 50 mg group, and 33.3% of placebo recipients.

“Most adverse events reported were mild to moderate in severity and related to gastrointestinal discomfort (nausea and vomiting) and occurred in a dose-proportional manner,” reported Dr. Gasiorek.

Gastrointestinal events were experienced by 50%, 87.5%, and 16.7% of participants receiving amycretin 50 mg, amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and placebo, respectively (112 in total). 

Decreased appetite was also found in 56.3%, 81.3%, and 16.7% of the amycretin 50 mg, amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and placebo groups, respectively.

Two serious adverse events occurred, one of which was acute cholecystitis and the other diabetic ketoacidosis; “however, the [latter] participant was found to have autoantibodies for beta cells before treatment and was later diagnosed with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gasiorek said.
 

Body Weight Reduction 

Participants on 50 mg amycretin lost an average of 10.4% of their body weight (estimated treatment difference vs placebo, –9.2; 95% CI, –12.0 to –6.5), whereas those on 2 × 50 mg amycretin lost 13.1% of their body weight (estimated treatment difference vs placebo, –11.8; 95% CI, –14.6 to –9.0). Placebo group participants lost 1.2% of their body weight over the 12 weeks. 

Although no plateauing of weight loss was seen, said Dr. Gasiorek, it is important to consider the relatively short treatment duration and the limited time on the final dose, which could potentially introduce bias.

To date, weight loss medications based on GLP-1 RA technology are injectables. A combination of the injectable amylin analogue cagrilintide and the GLP-1 RA semaglutide is also being explored as a subcutaneous treatment solution.

In a comment, Martin Holst Lange, MD, PhD, executive vice president of development at Novo Nordisk, said that “amycretin is the first treatment to harness the two distinct biological pathways stimulated by amylin and GLP-1 in a single molecule.”

The safety and tolerability profiles and the magnitude of weight loss support further development of amycretin in patients with overweight or obesity, said Dr. Lange, who noted that the company was awaiting data from the ongoing phase 1 trial with subcutaneous amycretin, expected in 2025.

Having heard the presentation, co-moderator Timo Müller, PhD, professor at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany, gave a considered response. “The drug was relatively well tolerated, with the typical GLP-1–induced GI [gastrointestinal] adverse effects being the most frequently reported.”

But he pointed out that questions remain. “We still need to know whether, at the given dose, the drug outperforms best-in-class drugs like semaglutide or tirzepatide at the highest approved doses. Furthermore, it warrants clarification if and to what extent the activation of the amylin receptor contributes to the shown effect and if and to what extent the glycemic benefits result from activation of the glucagon receptor (amylin improved glycemia by decreasing the secretion of glucagon). In any way, the current data remain friendly and support phase 2 development.” 
 

Oral Meds Could Bring Down Cost

Commenting on the data, Nerys Astbury, PhD, associate professor of diet and obesity at Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, England, said, “It is important to note that whilst the participants in this trial did lose weight over the 12-week study — and this was statistically more weight than in the placebo group — this study was not designed or powered to detect differences in body weight over longer periods of time.” 

If the results are confirmed in future studies, amycretin might widen the treatment options and introduce competition, probably bringing down the costs in the longer-term, said Dr. Astbury, who welcomes the prospect. 

“It is possible that some people might find the oral medications more acceptable than the injectable GLP-1 agonists currently available,” she said. And the current options are expensive, “which raises challenges to a taxpayer-funded health system like the NHS [National Health Service].” 

“Furthermore, if the growing number of oral obesity medications prove safe, tolerable, and effective ... they are likely to significantly reduce the risks of developing many complications of obesity.”

Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine and honorary consultant, University of Glasgow, Scotland, agreed. “The more medicines coming forward to treat obesity, the better,” he said. In particular, oral medications would be more easily available, and cheaper, “for the many millions around the world struggling with obesity and its complications.”

Dr. Gasiorek declares she is an employee of and a shareholder in Novo Nordisk. Dr. Astbury declares no financial disclosures. Dr. Sattar declares having consulted for several companies that make diabetes medicines but also contributed to several lifestyle trials. For Novo Nordisk, he has consulted for the company on advisory boards, but not on any of their weight loss drug trial committees, and he is on the steering committee for the ZEUS trial, which is not a weight loss trial product but an anti-inflammatory. He does not have any shares for any product in health etc. He declares consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and grant support paid to his university from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Müller received financial support or an honorarium from Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mercodia; he further holds stocks at Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly and is cofounder of Bluewater Biosciences.

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

MADRID — Amycretin, a dual-pathway, oral weight loss drug, led to up to 13% body weight loss in participants with overweight or obesity according to phase 1, first-in-human study data presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 annual meeting.

Body weight loss was “remarkable for an orally delivered biologic,” said Agnes Gasiorek, PhD, senior clinical pharmacology specialist at Novo Nordisk, Måløv, Denmark, who presented the results. And “there was no plateauing of weight loss in the treatment period.”

The mean change in percentage body weight was –10.4% with amycretin 50 mg, –13.1% with amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and –1.2% with placebo after 12 weeks of treatment.

With respect to the primary endpoint, stepwise dose escalation demonstrated that all tested dose levels up to and including 2 × 50 mg over a 12-week escalation period were safe and tolerable, Dr. Gasiorek reported.

The adverse events were in line with what was expected from targeting these receptors, and no new safety signals appeared during the study, she added.
 

Dual Pathways

Amycretin is a novel protein-based unimolecular amylin combined with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and is the first oral formulation of this combination under development.

The two components are both known to reduce appetite and energy intake and increase satiety, said Dr. Gasiorek, but amylin is considered to potentially increase leptin sensitivity and GLP-1 RAs are known to increase insulin secretion and biosynthesis. Together, the two components improve insulin sensitivity, decrease glucagon secretion, and lead to acute delay in gastric emptying.

The single-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 1 study enrolled men and women aged 18-55 years (mean, 38-42 years across groups) with a body mass index of 25.0-39.9, without diabetes, and considered otherwise healthy. 

Participants were randomly assigned to receive to receive oral amycretin (n = 95) or placebo (n = 29) once a day for up to 12 weeks. Study arms comprised single-ascending dosing (increasing from 1 mg/d to 25 mg), and multiple-ascending dosing. The latter consisted of multiple ascending doses (from 3 to 12 mg) over 10 days and multiple ascending doses (stepwise dose escalation, from 3 mg up to a final dose of 2 × 50 mg) over 12 weeks. 

In her presentation at the EASD meeting, Dr. Gasiorek focused on results of the 12-week multiple ascending dose schedule with amycretin 50 mg (n = 16), amycretin 2 × 50 mg (n = 16), and placebo (n = 12). 

The primary endpoint of the study was the number of treatment-emergent adverse events, while the area under the amycretin plasma concentration time curve and the maximum plasma concentration of amycretin were secondary endpoints. 

The researchers also added percentage change in body weight after 12 weeks of treatment as an exploratory endpoint. 
 

Safety Findings of Multiple Dosing

A total of 242 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in the combined active and placebo groups and were of mild to moderate severity. 

Treatment-emergent adverse events were found in 75% of the amycretin 50 mg group, 93.8% of the amycretin 2 × 50 mg group, and 33.3% of placebo recipients.

“Most adverse events reported were mild to moderate in severity and related to gastrointestinal discomfort (nausea and vomiting) and occurred in a dose-proportional manner,” reported Dr. Gasiorek.

Gastrointestinal events were experienced by 50%, 87.5%, and 16.7% of participants receiving amycretin 50 mg, amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and placebo, respectively (112 in total). 

Decreased appetite was also found in 56.3%, 81.3%, and 16.7% of the amycretin 50 mg, amycretin 2 × 50 mg, and placebo groups, respectively.

Two serious adverse events occurred, one of which was acute cholecystitis and the other diabetic ketoacidosis; “however, the [latter] participant was found to have autoantibodies for beta cells before treatment and was later diagnosed with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gasiorek said.
 

Body Weight Reduction 

Participants on 50 mg amycretin lost an average of 10.4% of their body weight (estimated treatment difference vs placebo, –9.2; 95% CI, –12.0 to –6.5), whereas those on 2 × 50 mg amycretin lost 13.1% of their body weight (estimated treatment difference vs placebo, –11.8; 95% CI, –14.6 to –9.0). Placebo group participants lost 1.2% of their body weight over the 12 weeks. 

Although no plateauing of weight loss was seen, said Dr. Gasiorek, it is important to consider the relatively short treatment duration and the limited time on the final dose, which could potentially introduce bias.

To date, weight loss medications based on GLP-1 RA technology are injectables. A combination of the injectable amylin analogue cagrilintide and the GLP-1 RA semaglutide is also being explored as a subcutaneous treatment solution.

In a comment, Martin Holst Lange, MD, PhD, executive vice president of development at Novo Nordisk, said that “amycretin is the first treatment to harness the two distinct biological pathways stimulated by amylin and GLP-1 in a single molecule.”

The safety and tolerability profiles and the magnitude of weight loss support further development of amycretin in patients with overweight or obesity, said Dr. Lange, who noted that the company was awaiting data from the ongoing phase 1 trial with subcutaneous amycretin, expected in 2025.

Having heard the presentation, co-moderator Timo Müller, PhD, professor at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany, gave a considered response. “The drug was relatively well tolerated, with the typical GLP-1–induced GI [gastrointestinal] adverse effects being the most frequently reported.”

But he pointed out that questions remain. “We still need to know whether, at the given dose, the drug outperforms best-in-class drugs like semaglutide or tirzepatide at the highest approved doses. Furthermore, it warrants clarification if and to what extent the activation of the amylin receptor contributes to the shown effect and if and to what extent the glycemic benefits result from activation of the glucagon receptor (amylin improved glycemia by decreasing the secretion of glucagon). In any way, the current data remain friendly and support phase 2 development.” 
 

Oral Meds Could Bring Down Cost

Commenting on the data, Nerys Astbury, PhD, associate professor of diet and obesity at Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, England, said, “It is important to note that whilst the participants in this trial did lose weight over the 12-week study — and this was statistically more weight than in the placebo group — this study was not designed or powered to detect differences in body weight over longer periods of time.” 

If the results are confirmed in future studies, amycretin might widen the treatment options and introduce competition, probably bringing down the costs in the longer-term, said Dr. Astbury, who welcomes the prospect. 

“It is possible that some people might find the oral medications more acceptable than the injectable GLP-1 agonists currently available,” she said. And the current options are expensive, “which raises challenges to a taxpayer-funded health system like the NHS [National Health Service].” 

“Furthermore, if the growing number of oral obesity medications prove safe, tolerable, and effective ... they are likely to significantly reduce the risks of developing many complications of obesity.”

Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine and honorary consultant, University of Glasgow, Scotland, agreed. “The more medicines coming forward to treat obesity, the better,” he said. In particular, oral medications would be more easily available, and cheaper, “for the many millions around the world struggling with obesity and its complications.”

Dr. Gasiorek declares she is an employee of and a shareholder in Novo Nordisk. Dr. Astbury declares no financial disclosures. Dr. Sattar declares having consulted for several companies that make diabetes medicines but also contributed to several lifestyle trials. For Novo Nordisk, he has consulted for the company on advisory boards, but not on any of their weight loss drug trial committees, and he is on the steering committee for the ZEUS trial, which is not a weight loss trial product but an anti-inflammatory. He does not have any shares for any product in health etc. He declares consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and grant support paid to his university from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Müller received financial support or an honorarium from Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mercodia; he further holds stocks at Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly and is cofounder of Bluewater Biosciences.

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

At age 57, a senior scientific researcher in Santa Barbara, California, complained of chronic erectile dysfunction (ED) in what had been a sexually active marriage. “I just couldn’t get an erection, let alone sustain one. Apart from that, I maybe felt a bit tired but generally okay,” he said. Though seemingly well otherwise, 18 months later he was dead of a hereditary right-sided colon cancer.

While not all cases of ED are associated with a dire outcome, the genitourinary signals of ED and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), especially nocturia, serve as sentinel indicators of the presence of, or risk factors for, serious chronic conditions. These commonly include cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and metabolic syndrome and are associated with obesity, depression, and obstructive sleep apnea.

Sometimes these serious conditions may stay under the radar until men seek help for ED or LUTS.

“We know that among men who had a heart attack, 50% had some degree of ED within 3 years of their cardiac event,” Sam Tafari, MBBS, of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital in Adelaide, South Australia, said in an interview.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that these two problems may specifically incentivize men to seek timely care for serious conditions they might otherwise not get, according to Dr. Tafari. And primary care doctors are ideally positioned to get men early multifaceted care. He recently coauthored a call to action on this issue in a review appearing in the Journal of Men’s Health.

In Dr. Tafari’s experience, most patients seeking urological care are unaware of the multiple conditions linked to ED and LUTS. “Many consider these to be due to issues like low testosterone, which actually make up a very small proportion of cases of ED,” he said. Aging, obesity, inactivity, smoking, alcohol abuse, and prescription and street drugs can also contribute to the development of ED.

In most affected men, ED is of vascular etiology, with endothelial dysfunction of the inner lining of blood vessels and smooth muscle the common denominator.

This dysfunction causes inadequate blood supply to both the coronary and the penile arteries, so ED and CVD are considered different manifestations of the same systemic disorder. Because the tumescence-controlling cavernosal vessels of the penis are considerably smaller, the same level of arteriopathy causes a more severe reduction in blood in the erectile tissue. As a result, ED often precedes CVD and presents an early opportunity to screen men for CVD.

As to the mechanisms behind LUTS, Peter N. Tsambarlis, MD, a urologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, subscribes to the inflammation theory. “Suboptimal health issues such as high [blood] pressure, blood lipids, and blood glucose lead to chronic widespread inflammation, which makes the bladder less flexible as a storage vessel,” he explained. “It’s not able to stretch adequately overnight to hold the urine until morning.”
 

Ask Early, Ask Often

Jeffrey P. Weiss, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York, has done research that uncovered a relationship between structural cardiac disease and nocturia. “So if you had to ask a patient a single question that would point to a global health issue, it would be ‘Do you have frequent nighttime urination,’ ” he said.

It’s never too soon to ask men about these symptoms, said Dr. Tsambarlis. The best time to raise issues of ED and LUTS is when a man enters primary care — regardless of age or absence of symptoms. “That way you have a baseline and can watch for changes and do early intervention as needed. Men don’t usually want to bring up sexual dysfunction or urinary health, but asking doesn’t need to dominate the visit,” he said.

Dr. Tafari recommends that primary care physicians adopt a targeted approach using ED and nocturia as entry points for engaging men in their healthcare. While acknowledging that primary care physicians have an ever-growing checklist of questions to ask patients and hardly need one more thing to screen for, he suggests asking two quick, and easy “before you go” genitourinary queries:

• Are you having trouble with erections or having sex?
• Are you getting up at night to pass urine more than once?

“The men really appreciate being asked,” he said. “But what worries me is all the men we don’t see who have these symptoms but don’t know they’re important, and no one is asking about them.”

Gideon Richards, MD, a urologist at the Northwell Health Physician Partners Smith Institute for Urology at Garden City, and director of Men’s Health, Central Region, for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, both in New York, said erectile problems should not wait for specialty care. By the time men with ED are referred to urology, they may already have failed treatment with first-line phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor therapy, he said. “A significant proportion will have arteriogenic erectile dysfunction, a measurable decrease in the amount of blood flow into the erectile bodies.”

Addressing the Issue

Addressing genitourinary-signaled issues has the double benefit of easing ED and LUTS and improving men’s health and longevity and may help narrow the worldwide gender gap in life expectancy. As a recent global analysis found, there’s a 5-year longevity disparity favoring women over men. Biology aside, men do not access healthcare as often as women, who consult their general practitioners regularly throughout their lifespan for multiple reasons, including reproductive care, and more screening programs are aimed at women.

Added Dr. Tsambarlis, “Men should know that losing weight and switching to a healthy lifestyle can improve sexual function about half as much as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors such as sildenafil [Viagra] or tadalafil [Cialis].”

“Many, however, would prefer just to take drugs rather than change their lifestyle and lose weight. There are certainly effective options available, but these are not uniformly effective,” said Dr. Weiss.

Dr. Tafari’s group is designing a short, simple, culturally acceptable screening tool for use in primary care practice and will monitor its impact on physician prescribing habits and overall men’s health outcomes.

Dr. Tafari received funding from the Hospital Research Foundation and Freemasons Centre for Male Health and Wellbeing in Adelaide, South Australia. Dr. Tafari, Dr. Tsambarlis, Dr. Weiss, and Dr. Richards had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At age 57, a senior scientific researcher in Santa Barbara, California, complained of chronic erectile dysfunction (ED) in what had been a sexually active marriage. “I just couldn’t get an erection, let alone sustain one. Apart from that, I maybe felt a bit tired but generally okay,” he said. Though seemingly well otherwise, 18 months later he was dead of a hereditary right-sided colon cancer.

While not all cases of ED are associated with a dire outcome, the genitourinary signals of ED and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), especially nocturia, serve as sentinel indicators of the presence of, or risk factors for, serious chronic conditions. These commonly include cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and metabolic syndrome and are associated with obesity, depression, and obstructive sleep apnea.

Sometimes these serious conditions may stay under the radar until men seek help for ED or LUTS.

“We know that among men who had a heart attack, 50% had some degree of ED within 3 years of their cardiac event,” Sam Tafari, MBBS, of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital in Adelaide, South Australia, said in an interview.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that these two problems may specifically incentivize men to seek timely care for serious conditions they might otherwise not get, according to Dr. Tafari. And primary care doctors are ideally positioned to get men early multifaceted care. He recently coauthored a call to action on this issue in a review appearing in the Journal of Men’s Health.

In Dr. Tafari’s experience, most patients seeking urological care are unaware of the multiple conditions linked to ED and LUTS. “Many consider these to be due to issues like low testosterone, which actually make up a very small proportion of cases of ED,” he said. Aging, obesity, inactivity, smoking, alcohol abuse, and prescription and street drugs can also contribute to the development of ED.

In most affected men, ED is of vascular etiology, with endothelial dysfunction of the inner lining of blood vessels and smooth muscle the common denominator.

This dysfunction causes inadequate blood supply to both the coronary and the penile arteries, so ED and CVD are considered different manifestations of the same systemic disorder. Because the tumescence-controlling cavernosal vessels of the penis are considerably smaller, the same level of arteriopathy causes a more severe reduction in blood in the erectile tissue. As a result, ED often precedes CVD and presents an early opportunity to screen men for CVD.

As to the mechanisms behind LUTS, Peter N. Tsambarlis, MD, a urologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, subscribes to the inflammation theory. “Suboptimal health issues such as high [blood] pressure, blood lipids, and blood glucose lead to chronic widespread inflammation, which makes the bladder less flexible as a storage vessel,” he explained. “It’s not able to stretch adequately overnight to hold the urine until morning.”
 

Ask Early, Ask Often

Jeffrey P. Weiss, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York, has done research that uncovered a relationship between structural cardiac disease and nocturia. “So if you had to ask a patient a single question that would point to a global health issue, it would be ‘Do you have frequent nighttime urination,’ ” he said.

It’s never too soon to ask men about these symptoms, said Dr. Tsambarlis. The best time to raise issues of ED and LUTS is when a man enters primary care — regardless of age or absence of symptoms. “That way you have a baseline and can watch for changes and do early intervention as needed. Men don’t usually want to bring up sexual dysfunction or urinary health, but asking doesn’t need to dominate the visit,” he said.

Dr. Tafari recommends that primary care physicians adopt a targeted approach using ED and nocturia as entry points for engaging men in their healthcare. While acknowledging that primary care physicians have an ever-growing checklist of questions to ask patients and hardly need one more thing to screen for, he suggests asking two quick, and easy “before you go” genitourinary queries:

• Are you having trouble with erections or having sex?
• Are you getting up at night to pass urine more than once?

“The men really appreciate being asked,” he said. “But what worries me is all the men we don’t see who have these symptoms but don’t know they’re important, and no one is asking about them.”

Gideon Richards, MD, a urologist at the Northwell Health Physician Partners Smith Institute for Urology at Garden City, and director of Men’s Health, Central Region, for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, both in New York, said erectile problems should not wait for specialty care. By the time men with ED are referred to urology, they may already have failed treatment with first-line phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor therapy, he said. “A significant proportion will have arteriogenic erectile dysfunction, a measurable decrease in the amount of blood flow into the erectile bodies.”

Addressing the Issue

Addressing genitourinary-signaled issues has the double benefit of easing ED and LUTS and improving men’s health and longevity and may help narrow the worldwide gender gap in life expectancy. As a recent global analysis found, there’s a 5-year longevity disparity favoring women over men. Biology aside, men do not access healthcare as often as women, who consult their general practitioners regularly throughout their lifespan for multiple reasons, including reproductive care, and more screening programs are aimed at women.

Added Dr. Tsambarlis, “Men should know that losing weight and switching to a healthy lifestyle can improve sexual function about half as much as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors such as sildenafil [Viagra] or tadalafil [Cialis].”

“Many, however, would prefer just to take drugs rather than change their lifestyle and lose weight. There are certainly effective options available, but these are not uniformly effective,” said Dr. Weiss.

Dr. Tafari’s group is designing a short, simple, culturally acceptable screening tool for use in primary care practice and will monitor its impact on physician prescribing habits and overall men’s health outcomes.

Dr. Tafari received funding from the Hospital Research Foundation and Freemasons Centre for Male Health and Wellbeing in Adelaide, South Australia. Dr. Tafari, Dr. Tsambarlis, Dr. Weiss, and Dr. Richards had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At age 57, a senior scientific researcher in Santa Barbara, California, complained of chronic erectile dysfunction (ED) in what had been a sexually active marriage. “I just couldn’t get an erection, let alone sustain one. Apart from that, I maybe felt a bit tired but generally okay,” he said. Though seemingly well otherwise, 18 months later he was dead of a hereditary right-sided colon cancer.

While not all cases of ED are associated with a dire outcome, the genitourinary signals of ED and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), especially nocturia, serve as sentinel indicators of the presence of, or risk factors for, serious chronic conditions. These commonly include cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and metabolic syndrome and are associated with obesity, depression, and obstructive sleep apnea.

Sometimes these serious conditions may stay under the radar until men seek help for ED or LUTS.

“We know that among men who had a heart attack, 50% had some degree of ED within 3 years of their cardiac event,” Sam Tafari, MBBS, of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital in Adelaide, South Australia, said in an interview.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that these two problems may specifically incentivize men to seek timely care for serious conditions they might otherwise not get, according to Dr. Tafari. And primary care doctors are ideally positioned to get men early multifaceted care. He recently coauthored a call to action on this issue in a review appearing in the Journal of Men’s Health.

In Dr. Tafari’s experience, most patients seeking urological care are unaware of the multiple conditions linked to ED and LUTS. “Many consider these to be due to issues like low testosterone, which actually make up a very small proportion of cases of ED,” he said. Aging, obesity, inactivity, smoking, alcohol abuse, and prescription and street drugs can also contribute to the development of ED.

In most affected men, ED is of vascular etiology, with endothelial dysfunction of the inner lining of blood vessels and smooth muscle the common denominator.

This dysfunction causes inadequate blood supply to both the coronary and the penile arteries, so ED and CVD are considered different manifestations of the same systemic disorder. Because the tumescence-controlling cavernosal vessels of the penis are considerably smaller, the same level of arteriopathy causes a more severe reduction in blood in the erectile tissue. As a result, ED often precedes CVD and presents an early opportunity to screen men for CVD.

As to the mechanisms behind LUTS, Peter N. Tsambarlis, MD, a urologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, subscribes to the inflammation theory. “Suboptimal health issues such as high [blood] pressure, blood lipids, and blood glucose lead to chronic widespread inflammation, which makes the bladder less flexible as a storage vessel,” he explained. “It’s not able to stretch adequately overnight to hold the urine until morning.”
 

Ask Early, Ask Often

Jeffrey P. Weiss, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York, has done research that uncovered a relationship between structural cardiac disease and nocturia. “So if you had to ask a patient a single question that would point to a global health issue, it would be ‘Do you have frequent nighttime urination,’ ” he said.

It’s never too soon to ask men about these symptoms, said Dr. Tsambarlis. The best time to raise issues of ED and LUTS is when a man enters primary care — regardless of age or absence of symptoms. “That way you have a baseline and can watch for changes and do early intervention as needed. Men don’t usually want to bring up sexual dysfunction or urinary health, but asking doesn’t need to dominate the visit,” he said.

Dr. Tafari recommends that primary care physicians adopt a targeted approach using ED and nocturia as entry points for engaging men in their healthcare. While acknowledging that primary care physicians have an ever-growing checklist of questions to ask patients and hardly need one more thing to screen for, he suggests asking two quick, and easy “before you go” genitourinary queries:

• Are you having trouble with erections or having sex?
• Are you getting up at night to pass urine more than once?

“The men really appreciate being asked,” he said. “But what worries me is all the men we don’t see who have these symptoms but don’t know they’re important, and no one is asking about them.”

Gideon Richards, MD, a urologist at the Northwell Health Physician Partners Smith Institute for Urology at Garden City, and director of Men’s Health, Central Region, for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, both in New York, said erectile problems should not wait for specialty care. By the time men with ED are referred to urology, they may already have failed treatment with first-line phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor therapy, he said. “A significant proportion will have arteriogenic erectile dysfunction, a measurable decrease in the amount of blood flow into the erectile bodies.”

Addressing the Issue

Addressing genitourinary-signaled issues has the double benefit of easing ED and LUTS and improving men’s health and longevity and may help narrow the worldwide gender gap in life expectancy. As a recent global analysis found, there’s a 5-year longevity disparity favoring women over men. Biology aside, men do not access healthcare as often as women, who consult their general practitioners regularly throughout their lifespan for multiple reasons, including reproductive care, and more screening programs are aimed at women.

Added Dr. Tsambarlis, “Men should know that losing weight and switching to a healthy lifestyle can improve sexual function about half as much as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors such as sildenafil [Viagra] or tadalafil [Cialis].”

“Many, however, would prefer just to take drugs rather than change their lifestyle and lose weight. There are certainly effective options available, but these are not uniformly effective,” said Dr. Weiss.

Dr. Tafari’s group is designing a short, simple, culturally acceptable screening tool for use in primary care practice and will monitor its impact on physician prescribing habits and overall men’s health outcomes.

Dr. Tafari received funding from the Hospital Research Foundation and Freemasons Centre for Male Health and Wellbeing in Adelaide, South Australia. Dr. Tafari, Dr. Tsambarlis, Dr. Weiss, and Dr. Richards had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Artificial intelligence (AI)–guided screening using digital stethoscopes doubled the detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in pregnant and postpartum women in Nigeria. Cardiomyopathy during pregnancy and post partum is challenging to diagnose because of symptom overlap with normal pregnancy changes. AI-guided screening showed a significant improvement in diagnosis rates, compared with usual care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial involving 1232 pregnant and postpartum women in Nigeria.
• Participants were randomized to either AI-guided screening using digital stethoscopes and 12-lead ECGs or usual care.
• The primary outcome was the identification of LVSD confirmed by echocardiography.
• Secondary outcomes were AI model performance across subgroups and the effectiveness of AI in identifying various levels of LVSD.

TAKEAWAY:

• AI-guided screening using digital stethoscopes detected LVSD in 4.1% of participants, compared with 2.0% of controls (P = .032).
• The 12-lead AI-ECG model detected LVSD in 3.4% of participants in the intervention arm, compared with 2.0% of those in the control arm (P = .125).
• No serious adverse events related to study participation were reported.
• The study highlighted the potential of AI-guided screening to improve the diagnosis of pregnancy-related cardiomyopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“Delays in the diagnosis of cardiomyopathy during the peripartum period is associated with poorer outcomes as such, it is imperative that we are able to identify cardiac dysfunction early so that appropriate care can be initiated to reduce associated adverse maternal and infant outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MBchB, Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s pragmatic design and enrollment at teaching hospitals with echocardiography capabilities limited generalizability. Two thirds of participants were in the third trimester or postpartum at study entry, which limited follow-up visits. The study did not require completion of all seven visits, which led to potential attrition bias. The selected cutoff for LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%) did not match the original model specifications, which potentially affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adedinsewo disclosed receiving grants from the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH program funded by the National Institutes of Health. Two coauthors reported holding patents for AI algorithms licensed to Anumana, AliveCor, and Eko Health. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE: 

Artificial intelligence (AI)–guided screening using digital stethoscopes doubled the detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in pregnant and postpartum women in Nigeria. Cardiomyopathy during pregnancy and post partum is challenging to diagnose because of symptom overlap with normal pregnancy changes. AI-guided screening showed a significant improvement in diagnosis rates, compared with usual care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial involving 1232 pregnant and postpartum women in Nigeria.
• Participants were randomized to either AI-guided screening using digital stethoscopes and 12-lead ECGs or usual care.
• The primary outcome was the identification of LVSD confirmed by echocardiography.
• Secondary outcomes were AI model performance across subgroups and the effectiveness of AI in identifying various levels of LVSD.

TAKEAWAY:

• AI-guided screening using digital stethoscopes detected LVSD in 4.1% of participants, compared with 2.0% of controls (P = .032).
• The 12-lead AI-ECG model detected LVSD in 3.4% of participants in the intervention arm, compared with 2.0% of those in the control arm (P = .125).
• No serious adverse events related to study participation were reported.
• The study highlighted the potential of AI-guided screening to improve the diagnosis of pregnancy-related cardiomyopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“Delays in the diagnosis of cardiomyopathy during the peripartum period is associated with poorer outcomes as such, it is imperative that we are able to identify cardiac dysfunction early so that appropriate care can be initiated to reduce associated adverse maternal and infant outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MBchB, Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s pragmatic design and enrollment at teaching hospitals with echocardiography capabilities limited generalizability. Two thirds of participants were in the third trimester or postpartum at study entry, which limited follow-up visits. The study did not require completion of all seven visits, which led to potential attrition bias. The selected cutoff for LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%) did not match the original model specifications, which potentially affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adedinsewo disclosed receiving grants from the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH program funded by the National Institutes of Health. Two coauthors reported holding patents for AI algorithms licensed to Anumana, AliveCor, and Eko Health. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE: 

Artificial intelligence (AI)–guided screening using digital stethoscopes doubled the detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in pregnant and postpartum women in Nigeria. Cardiomyopathy during pregnancy and post partum is challenging to diagnose because of symptom overlap with normal pregnancy changes. AI-guided screening showed a significant improvement in diagnosis rates, compared with usual care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial involving 1232 pregnant and postpartum women in Nigeria.
• Participants were randomized to either AI-guided screening using digital stethoscopes and 12-lead ECGs or usual care.
• The primary outcome was the identification of LVSD confirmed by echocardiography.
• Secondary outcomes were AI model performance across subgroups and the effectiveness of AI in identifying various levels of LVSD.

TAKEAWAY:

• AI-guided screening using digital stethoscopes detected LVSD in 4.1% of participants, compared with 2.0% of controls (P = .032).
• The 12-lead AI-ECG model detected LVSD in 3.4% of participants in the intervention arm, compared with 2.0% of those in the control arm (P = .125).
• No serious adverse events related to study participation were reported.
• The study highlighted the potential of AI-guided screening to improve the diagnosis of pregnancy-related cardiomyopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“Delays in the diagnosis of cardiomyopathy during the peripartum period is associated with poorer outcomes as such, it is imperative that we are able to identify cardiac dysfunction early so that appropriate care can be initiated to reduce associated adverse maternal and infant outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MBchB, Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s pragmatic design and enrollment at teaching hospitals with echocardiography capabilities limited generalizability. Two thirds of participants were in the third trimester or postpartum at study entry, which limited follow-up visits. The study did not require completion of all seven visits, which led to potential attrition bias. The selected cutoff for LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%) did not match the original model specifications, which potentially affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adedinsewo disclosed receiving grants from the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH program funded by the National Institutes of Health. Two coauthors reported holding patents for AI algorithms licensed to Anumana, AliveCor, and Eko Health. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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