Clinical Endocrinology News

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Few films have universal appeal these days, but one that comes close is the 1993 classic Groundhog Day, in which the protagonist is trapped in a time loop, doomed to living the same day over and over for many years.

One reason that this story resonates with so many, I think, is that we are all living a similar life. Not as a same-day loop, of course; but each week seems eerily similar to the last, as does each month, each year – on and on, ad infinitum. That’s why it is so important, every so often, to step out of the “loop” and reassess the bigger picture.

I write this reminder every couple of years because it’s so easy to lose sight of the overall landscape among the pressures of our daily routines. Sooner or later, no matter how dedicated we are, the grind gets to all of us, leading to fatigue, irritability, and a progressive decline in motivation. And we are too busy to sit down and think about what we might do to break that vicious cycle. This is detrimental to our own well being, as well as that of our patients.

There are many ways to maintain your intellectual and emotional health, but here’s how I do it: I take individual days off (average of one a month) to catch up on journals or taking a CME course; or to try something new – something I’ve been thinking about doing “someday, when there is time” – such as a guitar, bass, or sailing lessons; or a long weekend away with my wife.

And until COVID-19 put a temporary stop to them earlier this year, we have embarked on at least one longer adventure each year, some of which have been shared in these pages. Our 2019 expedition to Easter Island remains among the most memorable, and fulfilled a dream I’ve had since I read Thor Heyerdahl’s Aku Aku in grade school. As we explored the giant stone moai – which are found nowhere else in the world ­– I didn’t have the time – or the slightest inclination – to worry about the office. But I did accumulate some great ideas – practical, medical, and literary. Original thoughts are hard to chase down during the daily grind; but in a refreshing environment, they will seek you out. When our trip was over, I returned ready to take on the world, and my practice, anew.

I know how some of you feel about “wasting” a day – or, God forbid, a week. Patients might go elsewhere while you’re gone, and every day the office is idle you “lose money.” That whole paradigm is wrong. You bring in a given amount of revenue per year – more on some days, less on other days, none on weekends and vacations; it all averages out in the end.

Besides, this is much more important than money; this is breaking the routine, clearing the cobwebs, living your life. Trust me, your practice will still be there when you return. And while COVID-19 will not last forever, there are plenty of other “sharpeners” while we wait.

More than once I’ve recounted the story of Alex Müller and J. Georg Bednorz, the Swiss Nobel Laureates whose superconductivity research ground to a halt in 1986. The harder they pressed, the more elusive progress became. So Müller decided to take a break to read a new book on ceramics – a subject that had always interested him.

Nothing could have been less relevant to his work, of course; ceramics are among the poorest conductors known. But in that lower-pressure environment, Müller realized that a unique property of ceramics might apply to their project.

Back in the lab, the team created a ceramic compound that became the first successful “high-temperature” superconductor, which in turn triggered an explosion of research leading to breakthroughs in computing, electricity transmission, magnetically-elevated trains, and many applications yet to be realized.

Sharpening your saw may not change the world, but it will change you; any nudge out of your comfort zone will give you fresh ideas and help you look at seemingly insoluble problems in completely new ways.

And to those who still can’t bear the thought of taking time off, remember the dying words that no one has spoken, ever: “I wish I had spent more time in my office!”
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Few films have universal appeal these days, but one that comes close is the 1993 classic Groundhog Day, in which the protagonist is trapped in a time loop, doomed to living the same day over and over for many years.

One reason that this story resonates with so many, I think, is that we are all living a similar life. Not as a same-day loop, of course; but each week seems eerily similar to the last, as does each month, each year – on and on, ad infinitum. That’s why it is so important, every so often, to step out of the “loop” and reassess the bigger picture.

I write this reminder every couple of years because it’s so easy to lose sight of the overall landscape among the pressures of our daily routines. Sooner or later, no matter how dedicated we are, the grind gets to all of us, leading to fatigue, irritability, and a progressive decline in motivation. And we are too busy to sit down and think about what we might do to break that vicious cycle. This is detrimental to our own well being, as well as that of our patients.

There are many ways to maintain your intellectual and emotional health, but here’s how I do it: I take individual days off (average of one a month) to catch up on journals or taking a CME course; or to try something new – something I’ve been thinking about doing “someday, when there is time” – such as a guitar, bass, or sailing lessons; or a long weekend away with my wife.

And until COVID-19 put a temporary stop to them earlier this year, we have embarked on at least one longer adventure each year, some of which have been shared in these pages. Our 2019 expedition to Easter Island remains among the most memorable, and fulfilled a dream I’ve had since I read Thor Heyerdahl’s Aku Aku in grade school. As we explored the giant stone moai – which are found nowhere else in the world ­– I didn’t have the time – or the slightest inclination – to worry about the office. But I did accumulate some great ideas – practical, medical, and literary. Original thoughts are hard to chase down during the daily grind; but in a refreshing environment, they will seek you out. When our trip was over, I returned ready to take on the world, and my practice, anew.

I know how some of you feel about “wasting” a day – or, God forbid, a week. Patients might go elsewhere while you’re gone, and every day the office is idle you “lose money.” That whole paradigm is wrong. You bring in a given amount of revenue per year – more on some days, less on other days, none on weekends and vacations; it all averages out in the end.

Besides, this is much more important than money; this is breaking the routine, clearing the cobwebs, living your life. Trust me, your practice will still be there when you return. And while COVID-19 will not last forever, there are plenty of other “sharpeners” while we wait.

More than once I’ve recounted the story of Alex Müller and J. Georg Bednorz, the Swiss Nobel Laureates whose superconductivity research ground to a halt in 1986. The harder they pressed, the more elusive progress became. So Müller decided to take a break to read a new book on ceramics – a subject that had always interested him.

Nothing could have been less relevant to his work, of course; ceramics are among the poorest conductors known. But in that lower-pressure environment, Müller realized that a unique property of ceramics might apply to their project.

Back in the lab, the team created a ceramic compound that became the first successful “high-temperature” superconductor, which in turn triggered an explosion of research leading to breakthroughs in computing, electricity transmission, magnetically-elevated trains, and many applications yet to be realized.

Sharpening your saw may not change the world, but it will change you; any nudge out of your comfort zone will give you fresh ideas and help you look at seemingly insoluble problems in completely new ways.

And to those who still can’t bear the thought of taking time off, remember the dying words that no one has spoken, ever: “I wish I had spent more time in my office!”
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Few films have universal appeal these days, but one that comes close is the 1993 classic Groundhog Day, in which the protagonist is trapped in a time loop, doomed to living the same day over and over for many years.

One reason that this story resonates with so many, I think, is that we are all living a similar life. Not as a same-day loop, of course; but each week seems eerily similar to the last, as does each month, each year – on and on, ad infinitum. That’s why it is so important, every so often, to step out of the “loop” and reassess the bigger picture.

I write this reminder every couple of years because it’s so easy to lose sight of the overall landscape among the pressures of our daily routines. Sooner or later, no matter how dedicated we are, the grind gets to all of us, leading to fatigue, irritability, and a progressive decline in motivation. And we are too busy to sit down and think about what we might do to break that vicious cycle. This is detrimental to our own well being, as well as that of our patients.

There are many ways to maintain your intellectual and emotional health, but here’s how I do it: I take individual days off (average of one a month) to catch up on journals or taking a CME course; or to try something new – something I’ve been thinking about doing “someday, when there is time” – such as a guitar, bass, or sailing lessons; or a long weekend away with my wife.

And until COVID-19 put a temporary stop to them earlier this year, we have embarked on at least one longer adventure each year, some of which have been shared in these pages. Our 2019 expedition to Easter Island remains among the most memorable, and fulfilled a dream I’ve had since I read Thor Heyerdahl’s Aku Aku in grade school. As we explored the giant stone moai – which are found nowhere else in the world ­– I didn’t have the time – or the slightest inclination – to worry about the office. But I did accumulate some great ideas – practical, medical, and literary. Original thoughts are hard to chase down during the daily grind; but in a refreshing environment, they will seek you out. When our trip was over, I returned ready to take on the world, and my practice, anew.

I know how some of you feel about “wasting” a day – or, God forbid, a week. Patients might go elsewhere while you’re gone, and every day the office is idle you “lose money.” That whole paradigm is wrong. You bring in a given amount of revenue per year – more on some days, less on other days, none on weekends and vacations; it all averages out in the end.

Besides, this is much more important than money; this is breaking the routine, clearing the cobwebs, living your life. Trust me, your practice will still be there when you return. And while COVID-19 will not last forever, there are plenty of other “sharpeners” while we wait.

More than once I’ve recounted the story of Alex Müller and J. Georg Bednorz, the Swiss Nobel Laureates whose superconductivity research ground to a halt in 1986. The harder they pressed, the more elusive progress became. So Müller decided to take a break to read a new book on ceramics – a subject that had always interested him.

Nothing could have been less relevant to his work, of course; ceramics are among the poorest conductors known. But in that lower-pressure environment, Müller realized that a unique property of ceramics might apply to their project.

Back in the lab, the team created a ceramic compound that became the first successful “high-temperature” superconductor, which in turn triggered an explosion of research leading to breakthroughs in computing, electricity transmission, magnetically-elevated trains, and many applications yet to be realized.

Sharpening your saw may not change the world, but it will change you; any nudge out of your comfort zone will give you fresh ideas and help you look at seemingly insoluble problems in completely new ways.

And to those who still can’t bear the thought of taking time off, remember the dying words that no one has spoken, ever: “I wish I had spent more time in my office!”
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Large-scale scanning of serum proteins offers a potential method for noninvasive screening and monitoring of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the technique’s developers claim.

By scanning for about 5,000 proteins in nearly 3,000 samples from patients enrolled in studies from the Clinical Research Network in NASH (NASH CRN), Rachel Ostroff, PhD, and colleagues from SomaLogic in Boulder, Colo., created four protein models that mimic results of the major pathologic findings in liver tissue biopsy.

“Concurrent positive results from the protein models had performance characteristics of ‘rule-out’ tests for pathologists’ diagnosis of NASH. These tests may assist in new drug development and medical intervention decisions,” they wrote in a late-breaking poster presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“There is no single noninvasive method that can accurately and simultaneously capture steatosis, inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning and fibrosis, the four major pathologic components assessed by biopsy. Each of these is relevant to the multiple mechanisms targeted in drug development for NASH,” they wrote.

To see whether large-scale protemoics could serve as an alternative to invasive liver biopsy for use in clinical trials or in longitudinal studies of NASH, they used a modified aptamer proteomics platform to scan for liver-related proteins. Aptamers are olignonucleotide or peptide molecules designed to home in on a specific target.

They scanned for approximately 5,000 proteins in 2,852 serum samples from 638 patients in a NASH CRN natural history cohort, and in patients enrolled in two NASH treatment trials: the PIVENS trial, which is evaluating pioglitazone versus vitamin E and placebo in nondiabetic patients, and the FLINT trial, which is comparing obeticholic acid with placebo. All of the patients in the natural history cohort and half of all patients in the clinical trial cohorts were included in the training sets, with the remaining half included in the validation set.

The accuracy of the models, as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics in the training and validation sets, respectively, were as follows:

• Fibrosis: AUC 0.92/0.85.
• Steatosis: AUC 0.95/0.79.
• Inflammation: AUC 0.83/0.72.
• Hepatocyte Ballooning: AUC 0.87/0.83.

“A concurrent positive score for steatosis, inflammation and ballooning predicted the biopsy diagnosis of NASH with an accuracy of 73%,” Ostroff and colleagues wrote.

They also found that model scores applied over time showed improvements in symptoms in the patients on active therapies in the clinical trials, compared with patients on placebo.

A specialist in liver pathology and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who was not involved in the study said in an interview that she finds the results highly promising.
 

Impressive results

Elizabeth M. Brunt, MD, emeritus professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University in St. Louis, was a member of the NASH CRN when SomaLogic first proposed using the groups’ data for this study.

“I was impressed with them then, and I am very impressed with what they’re presenting here, and I can’t say that about all the noninvasive tests,” she said. “I think a lot of noninvasive tests are way over-simplifying what NASH is.”

She acknowledged that, although she spent much of her career performing liver biopsies, “you can’t biopsy every single patients who you suspect of having NASH, or certainly if you want to follow them over time – it’s unrealistic,” she said in an interview.

Although the protein scanning method cannot – and is not intended to – replace a well-conducted biopsy with the interpretation of a skilled pathologist, the proteins the company investigators identified can reflect the dynamic nature of liver disease and the liver’s ability to heal itself with a high degree of accuracy and hold promise for both screening patients and for monitoring responses to therapy, Dr. Brunt said.

The study was sponsored by SomaLogic. The authors are employees of the company. Dr. Brunt had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Ostroff R et al. The Liver Disease Meeting Digital Experience, Abstract LP11

Large-scale scanning of serum proteins offers a potential method for noninvasive screening and monitoring of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the technique’s developers claim.

By scanning for about 5,000 proteins in nearly 3,000 samples from patients enrolled in studies from the Clinical Research Network in NASH (NASH CRN), Rachel Ostroff, PhD, and colleagues from SomaLogic in Boulder, Colo., created four protein models that mimic results of the major pathologic findings in liver tissue biopsy.

“Concurrent positive results from the protein models had performance characteristics of ‘rule-out’ tests for pathologists’ diagnosis of NASH. These tests may assist in new drug development and medical intervention decisions,” they wrote in a late-breaking poster presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“There is no single noninvasive method that can accurately and simultaneously capture steatosis, inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning and fibrosis, the four major pathologic components assessed by biopsy. Each of these is relevant to the multiple mechanisms targeted in drug development for NASH,” they wrote.

To see whether large-scale protemoics could serve as an alternative to invasive liver biopsy for use in clinical trials or in longitudinal studies of NASH, they used a modified aptamer proteomics platform to scan for liver-related proteins. Aptamers are olignonucleotide or peptide molecules designed to home in on a specific target.

They scanned for approximately 5,000 proteins in 2,852 serum samples from 638 patients in a NASH CRN natural history cohort, and in patients enrolled in two NASH treatment trials: the PIVENS trial, which is evaluating pioglitazone versus vitamin E and placebo in nondiabetic patients, and the FLINT trial, which is comparing obeticholic acid with placebo. All of the patients in the natural history cohort and half of all patients in the clinical trial cohorts were included in the training sets, with the remaining half included in the validation set.

The accuracy of the models, as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics in the training and validation sets, respectively, were as follows:

• Fibrosis: AUC 0.92/0.85.
• Steatosis: AUC 0.95/0.79.
• Inflammation: AUC 0.83/0.72.
• Hepatocyte Ballooning: AUC 0.87/0.83.

“A concurrent positive score for steatosis, inflammation and ballooning predicted the biopsy diagnosis of NASH with an accuracy of 73%,” Ostroff and colleagues wrote.

They also found that model scores applied over time showed improvements in symptoms in the patients on active therapies in the clinical trials, compared with patients on placebo.

A specialist in liver pathology and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who was not involved in the study said in an interview that she finds the results highly promising.
 

Impressive results

Elizabeth M. Brunt, MD, emeritus professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University in St. Louis, was a member of the NASH CRN when SomaLogic first proposed using the groups’ data for this study.

“I was impressed with them then, and I am very impressed with what they’re presenting here, and I can’t say that about all the noninvasive tests,” she said. “I think a lot of noninvasive tests are way over-simplifying what NASH is.”

She acknowledged that, although she spent much of her career performing liver biopsies, “you can’t biopsy every single patients who you suspect of having NASH, or certainly if you want to follow them over time – it’s unrealistic,” she said in an interview.

Although the protein scanning method cannot – and is not intended to – replace a well-conducted biopsy with the interpretation of a skilled pathologist, the proteins the company investigators identified can reflect the dynamic nature of liver disease and the liver’s ability to heal itself with a high degree of accuracy and hold promise for both screening patients and for monitoring responses to therapy, Dr. Brunt said.

The study was sponsored by SomaLogic. The authors are employees of the company. Dr. Brunt had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Ostroff R et al. The Liver Disease Meeting Digital Experience, Abstract LP11

Large-scale scanning of serum proteins offers a potential method for noninvasive screening and monitoring of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the technique’s developers claim.

By scanning for about 5,000 proteins in nearly 3,000 samples from patients enrolled in studies from the Clinical Research Network in NASH (NASH CRN), Rachel Ostroff, PhD, and colleagues from SomaLogic in Boulder, Colo., created four protein models that mimic results of the major pathologic findings in liver tissue biopsy.

“Concurrent positive results from the protein models had performance characteristics of ‘rule-out’ tests for pathologists’ diagnosis of NASH. These tests may assist in new drug development and medical intervention decisions,” they wrote in a late-breaking poster presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“There is no single noninvasive method that can accurately and simultaneously capture steatosis, inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning and fibrosis, the four major pathologic components assessed by biopsy. Each of these is relevant to the multiple mechanisms targeted in drug development for NASH,” they wrote.

To see whether large-scale protemoics could serve as an alternative to invasive liver biopsy for use in clinical trials or in longitudinal studies of NASH, they used a modified aptamer proteomics platform to scan for liver-related proteins. Aptamers are olignonucleotide or peptide molecules designed to home in on a specific target.

They scanned for approximately 5,000 proteins in 2,852 serum samples from 638 patients in a NASH CRN natural history cohort, and in patients enrolled in two NASH treatment trials: the PIVENS trial, which is evaluating pioglitazone versus vitamin E and placebo in nondiabetic patients, and the FLINT trial, which is comparing obeticholic acid with placebo. All of the patients in the natural history cohort and half of all patients in the clinical trial cohorts were included in the training sets, with the remaining half included in the validation set.

The accuracy of the models, as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics in the training and validation sets, respectively, were as follows:

• Fibrosis: AUC 0.92/0.85.
• Steatosis: AUC 0.95/0.79.
• Inflammation: AUC 0.83/0.72.
• Hepatocyte Ballooning: AUC 0.87/0.83.

“A concurrent positive score for steatosis, inflammation and ballooning predicted the biopsy diagnosis of NASH with an accuracy of 73%,” Ostroff and colleagues wrote.

They also found that model scores applied over time showed improvements in symptoms in the patients on active therapies in the clinical trials, compared with patients on placebo.

A specialist in liver pathology and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who was not involved in the study said in an interview that she finds the results highly promising.
 

Impressive results

Elizabeth M. Brunt, MD, emeritus professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University in St. Louis, was a member of the NASH CRN when SomaLogic first proposed using the groups’ data for this study.

“I was impressed with them then, and I am very impressed with what they’re presenting here, and I can’t say that about all the noninvasive tests,” she said. “I think a lot of noninvasive tests are way over-simplifying what NASH is.”

She acknowledged that, although she spent much of her career performing liver biopsies, “you can’t biopsy every single patients who you suspect of having NASH, or certainly if you want to follow them over time – it’s unrealistic,” she said in an interview.

Although the protein scanning method cannot – and is not intended to – replace a well-conducted biopsy with the interpretation of a skilled pathologist, the proteins the company investigators identified can reflect the dynamic nature of liver disease and the liver’s ability to heal itself with a high degree of accuracy and hold promise for both screening patients and for monitoring responses to therapy, Dr. Brunt said.

The study was sponsored by SomaLogic. The authors are employees of the company. Dr. Brunt had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Ostroff R et al. The Liver Disease Meeting Digital Experience, Abstract LP11

As study after study piles up showing that those with obesity who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to have severe disease, several experts gave advice for clinicians and patients during the virtual ObesityWeek Interactive 2020 meeting.

Pichamol Jirapinyo, MD, MPH, associate director of bariatric endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, presented a study on those with obesity from New England hospitals which adds to the evidence that this is “a vulnerable population for COVID-19, like elderly or immunocompromised people,” Dr. Jirapinyo said in an interview.

These findings reinforce the need for clinicians to be “more aware of complications of obesity and refer earlier for treatment,” she added.

One audience member wanted to know if there are data showing whether people with a body mass index (BMI) above 35 kg/m² who successfully lose weight subsequently have lower rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Jirapinyo said she is not aware of any such studies, but anecdotally, two of her patients who had endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty last fall (whose BMI dropped from about 38 to 30) and later became infected with COVID-19 had mild symptoms.

But David A. Kass, MD, director, Institute of CardioScience at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, cautioned that the biology of COVID-19 is complex in patients with obesity “and immune system dysfunction is present as are physical factors that could limit breathing.”  

“Whether this gets reversed by weight loss is an attractive hypothesis, but at this point, it’s still a hypothesis,” he stressed.
 

Changes to immunity, inflammatory signaling in obesity

“There must be north of 600 or more studies by now with this message that obesity – particularly severe obesity with a BMI of 35 and higher – is a strong independent risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcome,” Dr. Kass emphasized.

“[COVID-19] revealed to the public in a somewhat dramatic fashion that being very obese does put one at higher risk of this disease being more debilitating and even fatal,” he added.

“Before this pandemic, many viewed obesity as only a problem if you have the other associated diseases – hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis, obstructive sleep apnea, etc.”

“What was not as appreciated is that marked obesity changes the body in various ways all by itself – altering metabolism, inflammatory signaling, immune surveillance, and responsiveness (including a less robust response to vaccines that has been written about as well).”  

“This is a bit like having a genetic abnormality that makes you at higher risk for getting, say, cancer,” he explained.

“It is there, it is real, it has an impact – but it still does take other stresses to reveal the risk potential. COVID-19 did that with obesity,” he said.
 

Latest study on effect of obesity, diabetes on COVID-19 severity

The study presented by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues identified 1,680 patients with COVID-19 at six hospitals in March 2020. Patients were a mean age of 51 years, had a mean BMI of 29.4, and 39% had obesity. Patients who required hospitalization were more likely to have obesity (46% vs. 35%; P < .0001).

Obesity was a significant risk factor for hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.7), ICU admission (OR, 1.8), and intubation (OR, 1.8; all P < .001), after controlling for age, sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, liver, and kidney disease, and cancer. 

Compared with having a normal weight, having severe obesity was also associated with roughly threefold higher risks of ICU admission and intubation – after controlling for major comorbidities.
 

Pandemic focuses minds on obesity prevention, treatment 

Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, said in an interview that these latest findings are “highly consistent with other studies that point to excess adiposity as a potential modifiable risk factor for more severe COVID-19.”

It “also strongly suggests that if people are worried about their risk for COVID-19 and want to improve their chances of a milder outcome, then it is reasonable to encourage them to make sustainable lifestyle changes that may lessen weight and improve their fitness levels,” said Dr. Sattar, professor of metabolic medicine, University of Glasgow.

“But of course, the big worry,” he added, “is that many are putting on weight due to lockdowns, less commuting to work, anxiety, and overeating and drinking, etc., so that many are struggling, and especially those at highest risk, such as those living in more overcrowded housing, etc. By contrast, more advantaged folk may have an easier time to improve lifestyles.”

The pandemic highlights that “we need a concerted effort on obesity prevention and treatment,” according to Dr. Sattar.

“For years we have realized links between obesity and chronic cardiometabolic conditions,” he said, “but to think excess weight may also be detrimental to acute effects of a novel virus running amok in the world has focused minds on obesity in a manner not seen before.

“Whether these new painful learnings lead to a more determined effort in countries to improve the obesogenic environment or to place more resources into prevention and management of obesity remains to be seen,” he said. 
 

Increased inquiries about bariatric surgery following COVID-19

Meanwhile, Matthew M. Hutter, MD, MPH, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, said in an interview that “COVID-19 and studies like this are now making many aware that obesity is not just a lifestyle choice or a cosmetic issue, but “a disease that needs to be taken seriously” and treated.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is a very safe and effective treatment for persons with obesity with a BMI >40 kg/m2 or BMI >35 kg/m2 and related diseases like diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, reflux, back pain, and many others,” added Dr. Hutter, who is also professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Recently, some metabolic and bariatric centers have seen an increase in patients considering surgery,” he said. “Some say that COVID-19 has made them realize they need to do something to be healthier.” 

“Currently, less than 1% of those who could benefit from surgery are actually having” it each year, Dr. Hutter noted, “and I think there are many who should seriously consider surgery to be healthier, live longer, and live better.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As study after study piles up showing that those with obesity who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to have severe disease, several experts gave advice for clinicians and patients during the virtual ObesityWeek Interactive 2020 meeting.

Pichamol Jirapinyo, MD, MPH, associate director of bariatric endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, presented a study on those with obesity from New England hospitals which adds to the evidence that this is “a vulnerable population for COVID-19, like elderly or immunocompromised people,” Dr. Jirapinyo said in an interview.

These findings reinforce the need for clinicians to be “more aware of complications of obesity and refer earlier for treatment,” she added.

One audience member wanted to know if there are data showing whether people with a body mass index (BMI) above 35 kg/m² who successfully lose weight subsequently have lower rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Jirapinyo said she is not aware of any such studies, but anecdotally, two of her patients who had endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty last fall (whose BMI dropped from about 38 to 30) and later became infected with COVID-19 had mild symptoms.

But David A. Kass, MD, director, Institute of CardioScience at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, cautioned that the biology of COVID-19 is complex in patients with obesity “and immune system dysfunction is present as are physical factors that could limit breathing.”  

“Whether this gets reversed by weight loss is an attractive hypothesis, but at this point, it’s still a hypothesis,” he stressed.
 

Changes to immunity, inflammatory signaling in obesity

“There must be north of 600 or more studies by now with this message that obesity – particularly severe obesity with a BMI of 35 and higher – is a strong independent risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcome,” Dr. Kass emphasized.

“[COVID-19] revealed to the public in a somewhat dramatic fashion that being very obese does put one at higher risk of this disease being more debilitating and even fatal,” he added.

“Before this pandemic, many viewed obesity as only a problem if you have the other associated diseases – hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis, obstructive sleep apnea, etc.”

“What was not as appreciated is that marked obesity changes the body in various ways all by itself – altering metabolism, inflammatory signaling, immune surveillance, and responsiveness (including a less robust response to vaccines that has been written about as well).”  

“This is a bit like having a genetic abnormality that makes you at higher risk for getting, say, cancer,” he explained.

“It is there, it is real, it has an impact – but it still does take other stresses to reveal the risk potential. COVID-19 did that with obesity,” he said.
 

Latest study on effect of obesity, diabetes on COVID-19 severity

The study presented by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues identified 1,680 patients with COVID-19 at six hospitals in March 2020. Patients were a mean age of 51 years, had a mean BMI of 29.4, and 39% had obesity. Patients who required hospitalization were more likely to have obesity (46% vs. 35%; P < .0001).

Obesity was a significant risk factor for hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.7), ICU admission (OR, 1.8), and intubation (OR, 1.8; all P < .001), after controlling for age, sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, liver, and kidney disease, and cancer. 

Compared with having a normal weight, having severe obesity was also associated with roughly threefold higher risks of ICU admission and intubation – after controlling for major comorbidities.
 

Pandemic focuses minds on obesity prevention, treatment 

Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, said in an interview that these latest findings are “highly consistent with other studies that point to excess adiposity as a potential modifiable risk factor for more severe COVID-19.”

It “also strongly suggests that if people are worried about their risk for COVID-19 and want to improve their chances of a milder outcome, then it is reasonable to encourage them to make sustainable lifestyle changes that may lessen weight and improve their fitness levels,” said Dr. Sattar, professor of metabolic medicine, University of Glasgow.

“But of course, the big worry,” he added, “is that many are putting on weight due to lockdowns, less commuting to work, anxiety, and overeating and drinking, etc., so that many are struggling, and especially those at highest risk, such as those living in more overcrowded housing, etc. By contrast, more advantaged folk may have an easier time to improve lifestyles.”

The pandemic highlights that “we need a concerted effort on obesity prevention and treatment,” according to Dr. Sattar.

“For years we have realized links between obesity and chronic cardiometabolic conditions,” he said, “but to think excess weight may also be detrimental to acute effects of a novel virus running amok in the world has focused minds on obesity in a manner not seen before.

“Whether these new painful learnings lead to a more determined effort in countries to improve the obesogenic environment or to place more resources into prevention and management of obesity remains to be seen,” he said. 
 

Increased inquiries about bariatric surgery following COVID-19

Meanwhile, Matthew M. Hutter, MD, MPH, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, said in an interview that “COVID-19 and studies like this are now making many aware that obesity is not just a lifestyle choice or a cosmetic issue, but “a disease that needs to be taken seriously” and treated.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is a very safe and effective treatment for persons with obesity with a BMI >40 kg/m2 or BMI >35 kg/m2 and related diseases like diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, reflux, back pain, and many others,” added Dr. Hutter, who is also professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Recently, some metabolic and bariatric centers have seen an increase in patients considering surgery,” he said. “Some say that COVID-19 has made them realize they need to do something to be healthier.” 

“Currently, less than 1% of those who could benefit from surgery are actually having” it each year, Dr. Hutter noted, “and I think there are many who should seriously consider surgery to be healthier, live longer, and live better.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As study after study piles up showing that those with obesity who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to have severe disease, several experts gave advice for clinicians and patients during the virtual ObesityWeek Interactive 2020 meeting.

Pichamol Jirapinyo, MD, MPH, associate director of bariatric endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, presented a study on those with obesity from New England hospitals which adds to the evidence that this is “a vulnerable population for COVID-19, like elderly or immunocompromised people,” Dr. Jirapinyo said in an interview.

These findings reinforce the need for clinicians to be “more aware of complications of obesity and refer earlier for treatment,” she added.

One audience member wanted to know if there are data showing whether people with a body mass index (BMI) above 35 kg/m² who successfully lose weight subsequently have lower rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Jirapinyo said she is not aware of any such studies, but anecdotally, two of her patients who had endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty last fall (whose BMI dropped from about 38 to 30) and later became infected with COVID-19 had mild symptoms.

But David A. Kass, MD, director, Institute of CardioScience at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, cautioned that the biology of COVID-19 is complex in patients with obesity “and immune system dysfunction is present as are physical factors that could limit breathing.”  

“Whether this gets reversed by weight loss is an attractive hypothesis, but at this point, it’s still a hypothesis,” he stressed.
 

Changes to immunity, inflammatory signaling in obesity

“There must be north of 600 or more studies by now with this message that obesity – particularly severe obesity with a BMI of 35 and higher – is a strong independent risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcome,” Dr. Kass emphasized.

“[COVID-19] revealed to the public in a somewhat dramatic fashion that being very obese does put one at higher risk of this disease being more debilitating and even fatal,” he added.

“Before this pandemic, many viewed obesity as only a problem if you have the other associated diseases – hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis, obstructive sleep apnea, etc.”

“What was not as appreciated is that marked obesity changes the body in various ways all by itself – altering metabolism, inflammatory signaling, immune surveillance, and responsiveness (including a less robust response to vaccines that has been written about as well).”  

“This is a bit like having a genetic abnormality that makes you at higher risk for getting, say, cancer,” he explained.

“It is there, it is real, it has an impact – but it still does take other stresses to reveal the risk potential. COVID-19 did that with obesity,” he said.
 

Latest study on effect of obesity, diabetes on COVID-19 severity

The study presented by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues identified 1,680 patients with COVID-19 at six hospitals in March 2020. Patients were a mean age of 51 years, had a mean BMI of 29.4, and 39% had obesity. Patients who required hospitalization were more likely to have obesity (46% vs. 35%; P < .0001).

Obesity was a significant risk factor for hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.7), ICU admission (OR, 1.8), and intubation (OR, 1.8; all P < .001), after controlling for age, sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, liver, and kidney disease, and cancer. 

Compared with having a normal weight, having severe obesity was also associated with roughly threefold higher risks of ICU admission and intubation – after controlling for major comorbidities.
 

Pandemic focuses minds on obesity prevention, treatment 

Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, said in an interview that these latest findings are “highly consistent with other studies that point to excess adiposity as a potential modifiable risk factor for more severe COVID-19.”

It “also strongly suggests that if people are worried about their risk for COVID-19 and want to improve their chances of a milder outcome, then it is reasonable to encourage them to make sustainable lifestyle changes that may lessen weight and improve their fitness levels,” said Dr. Sattar, professor of metabolic medicine, University of Glasgow.

“But of course, the big worry,” he added, “is that many are putting on weight due to lockdowns, less commuting to work, anxiety, and overeating and drinking, etc., so that many are struggling, and especially those at highest risk, such as those living in more overcrowded housing, etc. By contrast, more advantaged folk may have an easier time to improve lifestyles.”

The pandemic highlights that “we need a concerted effort on obesity prevention and treatment,” according to Dr. Sattar.

“For years we have realized links between obesity and chronic cardiometabolic conditions,” he said, “but to think excess weight may also be detrimental to acute effects of a novel virus running amok in the world has focused minds on obesity in a manner not seen before.

“Whether these new painful learnings lead to a more determined effort in countries to improve the obesogenic environment or to place more resources into prevention and management of obesity remains to be seen,” he said. 
 

Increased inquiries about bariatric surgery following COVID-19

Meanwhile, Matthew M. Hutter, MD, MPH, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, said in an interview that “COVID-19 and studies like this are now making many aware that obesity is not just a lifestyle choice or a cosmetic issue, but “a disease that needs to be taken seriously” and treated.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is a very safe and effective treatment for persons with obesity with a BMI >40 kg/m2 or BMI >35 kg/m2 and related diseases like diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, reflux, back pain, and many others,” added Dr. Hutter, who is also professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Recently, some metabolic and bariatric centers have seen an increase in patients considering surgery,” he said. “Some say that COVID-19 has made them realize they need to do something to be healthier.” 

“Currently, less than 1% of those who could benefit from surgery are actually having” it each year, Dr. Hutter noted, “and I think there are many who should seriously consider surgery to be healthier, live longer, and live better.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel randomized trial taking on a vexing issue around one of the world’s most commonly prescribed medications has concluded that frequently intolerable statin side effects, such as muscle weakness or pain, are almost entirely a nocebo effect, the placebo effect’s darker cousin.

The many patients who report such symptoms while taking statins are indeed probably feeling them, but they are a result of taking the pills rather than any pharmacologic effects, concluded researchers based on their 60-patient study, Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects or Nocebo (SAMSON).

“SAMSON leaves no doubt that patients really do get side effects from statin tablets, but what it shows us is that 90% of this symptomatic burden is elicited by placebo tablets too,” said James P. Howard, MB, PhD, Imperial College London, when presenting the results Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. They were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Studies have shown that in practice “more than half of patients abandon statins completely within 2 years. And yet, in placebo-controlled trials, no more people stop statins than placebo,” Dr. Howard said.

“The most important message from SAMSON is that side effects from statin tablets are very real, but they are mainly caused by the act of taking the tablets, not by the statin that is contained within them.”
Patients in the trial, all of whom had a history of dropping statins because of side effects, each took atorvastatin 20 mg/day, a placebo, or neither pill for 1 month, alternating the regimens in randomized order over 1 year so that each was followed a total of 4 months. They used a smartphone app to record the severity of any side effects, not necessarily just pain, on a scale of 0-100.

Symptom intensity scores averaged 16.3 for atorvastatin and 15.4 for placebo, for a nonsignificant difference, but only 8.0 for no-pill months (P < .001 compared with the statin or placebo).
Because such symptoms seem to be based on patient expectations from statin therapy, positive communication about what the drugs can achieve and how the next treatment steps are described can play a big role in their continued use.

For example, “changing them to another statin is a very reasonable thing to do, but as soon as you start trying people on lower doses and working up, you’re sort of telling them that you’re expecting at some dose that they are going to get side effects,” cautioned Dr. Howard at a media briefing on SAMSON.

“The most important thing is to explain the evidence, and what our expectations are, maybe be a bit more optimistic about statins, and tell them they’re very unlikely to suffer from side effects,” he explained, “because the nocebo effect can only really rear its head if the patients are expecting to feel worse – just like the placebo effect will only work if people are expecting to feel better.”
Amit Khera, MD, who moderated the media briefing, said he always tells such patients: “Yes, 1 in 10 patients report having muscle ache. But first and foremost, 9 in 10 don’t. The vast majority of patients don’t get muscle aches. I think that’s really an important part of the communication.”

Now, after SAMSON, “I have an additional point that I’m going to tell them: out of the patients that get muscle aches, probably 90% of that is the anticipation of getting the statin, the nocebo effect,” said Dr. Khera, who directs the preventive cardiology program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In practice, however, many patients who report adverse statin effects do so later than 2 weeks after starting therapy, “so these findings cannot be generalized to them,” proposed Francine K. Welty, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, as the invited discussant after Dr. Howard’s presentation.

All 60 patients recruited for SAMSON had previously stopped taking a statin because of side effects that arose within 2 weeks of their first dose. That requirement was intended to boost chances that any further symptoms during the trial would arise within a month of starting each new round of pills, Dr. Howard said.

So the trial’s results, Dr. Welty said, “are limited to those subjects who develop symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin.”

Including only such patients may have created bias toward a nocebo effect, she said, because “non–drug-related side effects of medications are often greatest during the initial weeks of treatment and tend to abate over time.” For example, “metformin causes diarrhea and beta-blockers cause fatigue, but subjects do adapt and generally tolerate them very well.”

The patients, 25 women and 35 men, 90% of whom were white, received four pill bottles, each with a month’s supply of atorvastatin, four bottles each with 1 month of placebo, and four empty bottles each, to be used double blind for a month in randomized order.

Patients used the smartphone app to document their symptom scores, which ranged from 0 for no symptoms to 100 for symptoms that were the “worst imaginable,” the published report noted. Patients who experienced symptoms so severe as to be intolerable could stop the 1-month regimen they were then following, with instructions to resume the regimens in order starting the next month.

Eleven patients were unable to complete all 12 1-month segments of the trial.

The study’s overall “nocebo ratio” of 0.90 was calculated as the difference between symptom intensity scores on placebo and on no treatment divided by the difference between symptom intensity on the statin and on no treatment. The interpretation: 90% of the symptom burden felt by patients receiving atorvastatin was also felt during placebo use.

A total of 30 patients, contacted 6 months after the trial concluded, had resumed taking a statin, while “4 planned to do so and one could not be contacted,” the report noted. The 25 other patients weren’t receiving a statin and had no plans to take one.

In an important part of the trial, Dr. Howard said, at its conclusion the patients were shown their pattern of symptoms in relation to whether they were taking the statin, placebo, or neither. “Participants could see as clearly as we could the surprisingly powerful magnitude of the nocebo effect. And this led to half of our patients happily restarting statins.”

The implications of SAMSON, Dr. Welty said, “are very important, in that those developing symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin should be reassured that approximately half will be able to successful restart the statin.”

SAMSON was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Howard had no disclosures. Dr. Welty disclosed chairing the data safety monitoring committee for Empagliflozin International Clinical Trials, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A novel randomized trial taking on a vexing issue around one of the world’s most commonly prescribed medications has concluded that frequently intolerable statin side effects, such as muscle weakness or pain, are almost entirely a nocebo effect, the placebo effect’s darker cousin.

The many patients who report such symptoms while taking statins are indeed probably feeling them, but they are a result of taking the pills rather than any pharmacologic effects, concluded researchers based on their 60-patient study, Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects or Nocebo (SAMSON).

“SAMSON leaves no doubt that patients really do get side effects from statin tablets, but what it shows us is that 90% of this symptomatic burden is elicited by placebo tablets too,” said James P. Howard, MB, PhD, Imperial College London, when presenting the results Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. They were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Studies have shown that in practice “more than half of patients abandon statins completely within 2 years. And yet, in placebo-controlled trials, no more people stop statins than placebo,” Dr. Howard said.

“The most important message from SAMSON is that side effects from statin tablets are very real, but they are mainly caused by the act of taking the tablets, not by the statin that is contained within them.”
Patients in the trial, all of whom had a history of dropping statins because of side effects, each took atorvastatin 20 mg/day, a placebo, or neither pill for 1 month, alternating the regimens in randomized order over 1 year so that each was followed a total of 4 months. They used a smartphone app to record the severity of any side effects, not necessarily just pain, on a scale of 0-100.

Symptom intensity scores averaged 16.3 for atorvastatin and 15.4 for placebo, for a nonsignificant difference, but only 8.0 for no-pill months (P < .001 compared with the statin or placebo).
Because such symptoms seem to be based on patient expectations from statin therapy, positive communication about what the drugs can achieve and how the next treatment steps are described can play a big role in their continued use.

For example, “changing them to another statin is a very reasonable thing to do, but as soon as you start trying people on lower doses and working up, you’re sort of telling them that you’re expecting at some dose that they are going to get side effects,” cautioned Dr. Howard at a media briefing on SAMSON.

“The most important thing is to explain the evidence, and what our expectations are, maybe be a bit more optimistic about statins, and tell them they’re very unlikely to suffer from side effects,” he explained, “because the nocebo effect can only really rear its head if the patients are expecting to feel worse – just like the placebo effect will only work if people are expecting to feel better.”
Amit Khera, MD, who moderated the media briefing, said he always tells such patients: “Yes, 1 in 10 patients report having muscle ache. But first and foremost, 9 in 10 don’t. The vast majority of patients don’t get muscle aches. I think that’s really an important part of the communication.”

Now, after SAMSON, “I have an additional point that I’m going to tell them: out of the patients that get muscle aches, probably 90% of that is the anticipation of getting the statin, the nocebo effect,” said Dr. Khera, who directs the preventive cardiology program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In practice, however, many patients who report adverse statin effects do so later than 2 weeks after starting therapy, “so these findings cannot be generalized to them,” proposed Francine K. Welty, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, as the invited discussant after Dr. Howard’s presentation.

All 60 patients recruited for SAMSON had previously stopped taking a statin because of side effects that arose within 2 weeks of their first dose. That requirement was intended to boost chances that any further symptoms during the trial would arise within a month of starting each new round of pills, Dr. Howard said.

So the trial’s results, Dr. Welty said, “are limited to those subjects who develop symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin.”

Including only such patients may have created bias toward a nocebo effect, she said, because “non–drug-related side effects of medications are often greatest during the initial weeks of treatment and tend to abate over time.” For example, “metformin causes diarrhea and beta-blockers cause fatigue, but subjects do adapt and generally tolerate them very well.”

The patients, 25 women and 35 men, 90% of whom were white, received four pill bottles, each with a month’s supply of atorvastatin, four bottles each with 1 month of placebo, and four empty bottles each, to be used double blind for a month in randomized order.

Patients used the smartphone app to document their symptom scores, which ranged from 0 for no symptoms to 100 for symptoms that were the “worst imaginable,” the published report noted. Patients who experienced symptoms so severe as to be intolerable could stop the 1-month regimen they were then following, with instructions to resume the regimens in order starting the next month.

Eleven patients were unable to complete all 12 1-month segments of the trial.

The study’s overall “nocebo ratio” of 0.90 was calculated as the difference between symptom intensity scores on placebo and on no treatment divided by the difference between symptom intensity on the statin and on no treatment. The interpretation: 90% of the symptom burden felt by patients receiving atorvastatin was also felt during placebo use.

A total of 30 patients, contacted 6 months after the trial concluded, had resumed taking a statin, while “4 planned to do so and one could not be contacted,” the report noted. The 25 other patients weren’t receiving a statin and had no plans to take one.

In an important part of the trial, Dr. Howard said, at its conclusion the patients were shown their pattern of symptoms in relation to whether they were taking the statin, placebo, or neither. “Participants could see as clearly as we could the surprisingly powerful magnitude of the nocebo effect. And this led to half of our patients happily restarting statins.”

The implications of SAMSON, Dr. Welty said, “are very important, in that those developing symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin should be reassured that approximately half will be able to successful restart the statin.”

SAMSON was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Howard had no disclosures. Dr. Welty disclosed chairing the data safety monitoring committee for Empagliflozin International Clinical Trials, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A novel randomized trial taking on a vexing issue around one of the world’s most commonly prescribed medications has concluded that frequently intolerable statin side effects, such as muscle weakness or pain, are almost entirely a nocebo effect, the placebo effect’s darker cousin.

The many patients who report such symptoms while taking statins are indeed probably feeling them, but they are a result of taking the pills rather than any pharmacologic effects, concluded researchers based on their 60-patient study, Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects or Nocebo (SAMSON).

“SAMSON leaves no doubt that patients really do get side effects from statin tablets, but what it shows us is that 90% of this symptomatic burden is elicited by placebo tablets too,” said James P. Howard, MB, PhD, Imperial College London, when presenting the results Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. They were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Studies have shown that in practice “more than half of patients abandon statins completely within 2 years. And yet, in placebo-controlled trials, no more people stop statins than placebo,” Dr. Howard said.

“The most important message from SAMSON is that side effects from statin tablets are very real, but they are mainly caused by the act of taking the tablets, not by the statin that is contained within them.”
Patients in the trial, all of whom had a history of dropping statins because of side effects, each took atorvastatin 20 mg/day, a placebo, or neither pill for 1 month, alternating the regimens in randomized order over 1 year so that each was followed a total of 4 months. They used a smartphone app to record the severity of any side effects, not necessarily just pain, on a scale of 0-100.

Symptom intensity scores averaged 16.3 for atorvastatin and 15.4 for placebo, for a nonsignificant difference, but only 8.0 for no-pill months (P < .001 compared with the statin or placebo).
Because such symptoms seem to be based on patient expectations from statin therapy, positive communication about what the drugs can achieve and how the next treatment steps are described can play a big role in their continued use.

For example, “changing them to another statin is a very reasonable thing to do, but as soon as you start trying people on lower doses and working up, you’re sort of telling them that you’re expecting at some dose that they are going to get side effects,” cautioned Dr. Howard at a media briefing on SAMSON.

“The most important thing is to explain the evidence, and what our expectations are, maybe be a bit more optimistic about statins, and tell them they’re very unlikely to suffer from side effects,” he explained, “because the nocebo effect can only really rear its head if the patients are expecting to feel worse – just like the placebo effect will only work if people are expecting to feel better.”
Amit Khera, MD, who moderated the media briefing, said he always tells such patients: “Yes, 1 in 10 patients report having muscle ache. But first and foremost, 9 in 10 don’t. The vast majority of patients don’t get muscle aches. I think that’s really an important part of the communication.”

Now, after SAMSON, “I have an additional point that I’m going to tell them: out of the patients that get muscle aches, probably 90% of that is the anticipation of getting the statin, the nocebo effect,” said Dr. Khera, who directs the preventive cardiology program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In practice, however, many patients who report adverse statin effects do so later than 2 weeks after starting therapy, “so these findings cannot be generalized to them,” proposed Francine K. Welty, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, as the invited discussant after Dr. Howard’s presentation.

All 60 patients recruited for SAMSON had previously stopped taking a statin because of side effects that arose within 2 weeks of their first dose. That requirement was intended to boost chances that any further symptoms during the trial would arise within a month of starting each new round of pills, Dr. Howard said.

So the trial’s results, Dr. Welty said, “are limited to those subjects who develop symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin.”

Including only such patients may have created bias toward a nocebo effect, she said, because “non–drug-related side effects of medications are often greatest during the initial weeks of treatment and tend to abate over time.” For example, “metformin causes diarrhea and beta-blockers cause fatigue, but subjects do adapt and generally tolerate them very well.”

The patients, 25 women and 35 men, 90% of whom were white, received four pill bottles, each with a month’s supply of atorvastatin, four bottles each with 1 month of placebo, and four empty bottles each, to be used double blind for a month in randomized order.

Patients used the smartphone app to document their symptom scores, which ranged from 0 for no symptoms to 100 for symptoms that were the “worst imaginable,” the published report noted. Patients who experienced symptoms so severe as to be intolerable could stop the 1-month regimen they were then following, with instructions to resume the regimens in order starting the next month.

Eleven patients were unable to complete all 12 1-month segments of the trial.

The study’s overall “nocebo ratio” of 0.90 was calculated as the difference between symptom intensity scores on placebo and on no treatment divided by the difference between symptom intensity on the statin and on no treatment. The interpretation: 90% of the symptom burden felt by patients receiving atorvastatin was also felt during placebo use.

A total of 30 patients, contacted 6 months after the trial concluded, had resumed taking a statin, while “4 planned to do so and one could not be contacted,” the report noted. The 25 other patients weren’t receiving a statin and had no plans to take one.

In an important part of the trial, Dr. Howard said, at its conclusion the patients were shown their pattern of symptoms in relation to whether they were taking the statin, placebo, or neither. “Participants could see as clearly as we could the surprisingly powerful magnitude of the nocebo effect. And this led to half of our patients happily restarting statins.”

The implications of SAMSON, Dr. Welty said, “are very important, in that those developing symptoms within 2 weeks of starting a statin should be reassured that approximately half will be able to successful restart the statin.”

SAMSON was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Howard had no disclosures. Dr. Welty disclosed chairing the data safety monitoring committee for Empagliflozin International Clinical Trials, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Treatment with evinacumab, an investigational lipid-lowering drug with a novel mechanism of action, safely led to roughly a halving of LDL cholesterol levels in patients with treatment-refractory hypercholesterolemia in a multicenter, phase 2 study of 272 patients treated for 16 weeks.

The study enrolled patients with either heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) (72% of patients), or patients with hypercholesterolemia and clinical evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had failed to reached their recommended level of LDL cholesterol by treatment (when tolerated) with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

Notably, only 8 of the 272 randomized patients entered the study not on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. Despite these background treatments, all enrolled patients were above their goal LDL-cholesterol level, with an average level of 148 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol after 16 weeks compared with placebo among patients treated with subcutaneous drug delivery either weekly or every other week, and among patients treated with intravenous delivery every 4 weeks. Results of the dose-ranging study showed that the highest subcutaneous dosage tested produced a 56% cut in LDL cholesterol, while the highest IV dosage led to a 51% drop, Robert S. Rosenson, MD, said at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently with his report, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s safety among 194 patients who received evinacumab was “reassuring,” said Dr. Rosenson, professor of medicine and director of the cardiometabolic disorders unit at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “I see no concerning signals in the safety profile,” he said in an interview, an assessment that other experts shared.

“Safety looks pretty good. I don’t see any major concerns,” said lipidologist and endocrinologist Anne C. Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. The LDL-cholesterol effect shown was “very, very impressive in these hard to treat patients,” added Dr. Goldberg, who was a coinvestigator on the study.

“Nothing stands out” as a safety concern in the new data, agreed Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and lipid specialist at the University of Colorado in Aurora.

Drug’s unique mechanism extends potential benefits

The phase 2 study included dose-ranging assessments of both subcutaneous and intravenous treatment with evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like 3, an enzyme that inhibits two different lipases involved in metabolizing LDL cholesterol and other lipoproteins including triglycerides. When the drug inhibits angiopoietin-like 3, the lipases remain more active and further reduce levels of their target lipoproteins.

“The powerful contribution of this drug is that it works by a pathway independent of the LDL receptor,” said Dr. Rosenson.

By this mechanism evinacumab cut not only LDL cholesterol, but also lowered triglycerides by 53%-62% at the highest dosages, an effect seen as a potential plus. “Prospects are favorable for a drug that not only lowers atherogenic lipoproteins but also lowers triglycerides [TGs]. That’s a distinguishing feature of this treatment,” compared with other agents that lower LDL cholesterol, Dr. Rosenson said. It could make evinacumab especially attractive for treating patients with diabetes, who often have elevated TG levels, he noted. But Dr. Eckel cautioned that a clinical benefit directly linked to TG lowering has not yet been proven.

The drug also cut HDL cholesterol by an average of as much as 31% from baseline, though the consequence of this effect isn’t clear. “I’m not worried about the HDL levels,” said Dr. Goldberg, who noted that changes in HDL cholesterol produced by drug treatment have often not shown discernible effects.

Reaching goals by IV or subcutaneous delivery

Another measure of evinacumab’s efficacy was the percentage of patients who fell below the LDL-cholesterol threshold of 70 mg/dL set by recommendations of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for the highest risk patients, and the less than 55 mg/dL goal set for similar patients by the European Society of Cardiology. Among the subcutaneously-treated patients, 64% achieved the goal of less than 70 mg/dL, and 49% hit the goal of less than 55 mg/dL. Among those who received IV treatment, 71% fell below the 70 mg/dL threshold, and 50% dropped below 55 mg/dL.

The good efficacy shown with subcutaneous dosing is critical, noted Dr. Eckel, as this represents a new dimension for evinacumab that had previously been tested only as an IV agent in patients with homozygous FH (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 20;383[8]:711-20).

“Subcutaneous delivery is needed for wide real world use,” Dr. Eckel noted in an interview.

Evinacumab’s role hangs on further studies

The path that evinacumab takes from here into U.S. practice is not yet clear, said Dr. Rosenson. He cited the approval earlier in 2020 of another LDL-lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol) that received U.S. regulatory approval for a similar patient population after studies that proved only lipid-lowering safety and efficacy, without any clinical-endpoint data. He wondered: “Will the [Food and Drug Administration] require a cardiovascular outcomes trial” for evinacumab?

The growing experience using the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies to treat hyperlipidemia has made clinicians comfortable with this general approach to lipid management, but if evinacumab never accumulates similar efficacy evidence that may relegate it to the backseat compared with the PCSK9 inhibitors for quite some time, suggested Dr. Goldberg, though she said she’d be willing to prescribe evinacumab to selected patients based on lipid-lowering evidence alone.

By providing an alternative mechanism for lipid lowering, evinacumab can serve as a useful add-on for patients not reaching their LDL-cholesterol goal with more established agents, thereby providing an alternative to LDL apheresis, which now serves as the lipid-lowering therapy of last resort, said both Dr. Rosenson and Dr. Goldberg.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to Regeneron, and has also  been a consultant to or received research funding from Amgen, 89Bio, Corvidia, CVS Caremark, Kowa, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Regeneron and Sanofi, research grants from Amarin, Amgen, Ionis/AKCEA, Novartis, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AKCEA, Esperion, Merck and Novartis. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to KOWA and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com 

Treatment with evinacumab, an investigational lipid-lowering drug with a novel mechanism of action, safely led to roughly a halving of LDL cholesterol levels in patients with treatment-refractory hypercholesterolemia in a multicenter, phase 2 study of 272 patients treated for 16 weeks.

The study enrolled patients with either heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) (72% of patients), or patients with hypercholesterolemia and clinical evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had failed to reached their recommended level of LDL cholesterol by treatment (when tolerated) with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

Notably, only 8 of the 272 randomized patients entered the study not on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. Despite these background treatments, all enrolled patients were above their goal LDL-cholesterol level, with an average level of 148 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol after 16 weeks compared with placebo among patients treated with subcutaneous drug delivery either weekly or every other week, and among patients treated with intravenous delivery every 4 weeks. Results of the dose-ranging study showed that the highest subcutaneous dosage tested produced a 56% cut in LDL cholesterol, while the highest IV dosage led to a 51% drop, Robert S. Rosenson, MD, said at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently with his report, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s safety among 194 patients who received evinacumab was “reassuring,” said Dr. Rosenson, professor of medicine and director of the cardiometabolic disorders unit at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “I see no concerning signals in the safety profile,” he said in an interview, an assessment that other experts shared.

“Safety looks pretty good. I don’t see any major concerns,” said lipidologist and endocrinologist Anne C. Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. The LDL-cholesterol effect shown was “very, very impressive in these hard to treat patients,” added Dr. Goldberg, who was a coinvestigator on the study.

“Nothing stands out” as a safety concern in the new data, agreed Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and lipid specialist at the University of Colorado in Aurora.

Drug’s unique mechanism extends potential benefits

The phase 2 study included dose-ranging assessments of both subcutaneous and intravenous treatment with evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like 3, an enzyme that inhibits two different lipases involved in metabolizing LDL cholesterol and other lipoproteins including triglycerides. When the drug inhibits angiopoietin-like 3, the lipases remain more active and further reduce levels of their target lipoproteins.

“The powerful contribution of this drug is that it works by a pathway independent of the LDL receptor,” said Dr. Rosenson.

By this mechanism evinacumab cut not only LDL cholesterol, but also lowered triglycerides by 53%-62% at the highest dosages, an effect seen as a potential plus. “Prospects are favorable for a drug that not only lowers atherogenic lipoproteins but also lowers triglycerides [TGs]. That’s a distinguishing feature of this treatment,” compared with other agents that lower LDL cholesterol, Dr. Rosenson said. It could make evinacumab especially attractive for treating patients with diabetes, who often have elevated TG levels, he noted. But Dr. Eckel cautioned that a clinical benefit directly linked to TG lowering has not yet been proven.

The drug also cut HDL cholesterol by an average of as much as 31% from baseline, though the consequence of this effect isn’t clear. “I’m not worried about the HDL levels,” said Dr. Goldberg, who noted that changes in HDL cholesterol produced by drug treatment have often not shown discernible effects.

Reaching goals by IV or subcutaneous delivery

Another measure of evinacumab’s efficacy was the percentage of patients who fell below the LDL-cholesterol threshold of 70 mg/dL set by recommendations of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for the highest risk patients, and the less than 55 mg/dL goal set for similar patients by the European Society of Cardiology. Among the subcutaneously-treated patients, 64% achieved the goal of less than 70 mg/dL, and 49% hit the goal of less than 55 mg/dL. Among those who received IV treatment, 71% fell below the 70 mg/dL threshold, and 50% dropped below 55 mg/dL.

The good efficacy shown with subcutaneous dosing is critical, noted Dr. Eckel, as this represents a new dimension for evinacumab that had previously been tested only as an IV agent in patients with homozygous FH (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 20;383[8]:711-20).

“Subcutaneous delivery is needed for wide real world use,” Dr. Eckel noted in an interview.

Evinacumab’s role hangs on further studies

The path that evinacumab takes from here into U.S. practice is not yet clear, said Dr. Rosenson. He cited the approval earlier in 2020 of another LDL-lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol) that received U.S. regulatory approval for a similar patient population after studies that proved only lipid-lowering safety and efficacy, without any clinical-endpoint data. He wondered: “Will the [Food and Drug Administration] require a cardiovascular outcomes trial” for evinacumab?

The growing experience using the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies to treat hyperlipidemia has made clinicians comfortable with this general approach to lipid management, but if evinacumab never accumulates similar efficacy evidence that may relegate it to the backseat compared with the PCSK9 inhibitors for quite some time, suggested Dr. Goldberg, though she said she’d be willing to prescribe evinacumab to selected patients based on lipid-lowering evidence alone.

By providing an alternative mechanism for lipid lowering, evinacumab can serve as a useful add-on for patients not reaching their LDL-cholesterol goal with more established agents, thereby providing an alternative to LDL apheresis, which now serves as the lipid-lowering therapy of last resort, said both Dr. Rosenson and Dr. Goldberg.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to Regeneron, and has also  been a consultant to or received research funding from Amgen, 89Bio, Corvidia, CVS Caremark, Kowa, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Regeneron and Sanofi, research grants from Amarin, Amgen, Ionis/AKCEA, Novartis, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AKCEA, Esperion, Merck and Novartis. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to KOWA and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com 

Treatment with evinacumab, an investigational lipid-lowering drug with a novel mechanism of action, safely led to roughly a halving of LDL cholesterol levels in patients with treatment-refractory hypercholesterolemia in a multicenter, phase 2 study of 272 patients treated for 16 weeks.

The study enrolled patients with either heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) (72% of patients), or patients with hypercholesterolemia and clinical evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had failed to reached their recommended level of LDL cholesterol by treatment (when tolerated) with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

Notably, only 8 of the 272 randomized patients entered the study not on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. Despite these background treatments, all enrolled patients were above their goal LDL-cholesterol level, with an average level of 148 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol after 16 weeks compared with placebo among patients treated with subcutaneous drug delivery either weekly or every other week, and among patients treated with intravenous delivery every 4 weeks. Results of the dose-ranging study showed that the highest subcutaneous dosage tested produced a 56% cut in LDL cholesterol, while the highest IV dosage led to a 51% drop, Robert S. Rosenson, MD, said at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently with his report, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s safety among 194 patients who received evinacumab was “reassuring,” said Dr. Rosenson, professor of medicine and director of the cardiometabolic disorders unit at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “I see no concerning signals in the safety profile,” he said in an interview, an assessment that other experts shared.

“Safety looks pretty good. I don’t see any major concerns,” said lipidologist and endocrinologist Anne C. Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. The LDL-cholesterol effect shown was “very, very impressive in these hard to treat patients,” added Dr. Goldberg, who was a coinvestigator on the study.

“Nothing stands out” as a safety concern in the new data, agreed Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and lipid specialist at the University of Colorado in Aurora.

Drug’s unique mechanism extends potential benefits

The phase 2 study included dose-ranging assessments of both subcutaneous and intravenous treatment with evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like 3, an enzyme that inhibits two different lipases involved in metabolizing LDL cholesterol and other lipoproteins including triglycerides. When the drug inhibits angiopoietin-like 3, the lipases remain more active and further reduce levels of their target lipoproteins.

“The powerful contribution of this drug is that it works by a pathway independent of the LDL receptor,” said Dr. Rosenson.

By this mechanism evinacumab cut not only LDL cholesterol, but also lowered triglycerides by 53%-62% at the highest dosages, an effect seen as a potential plus. “Prospects are favorable for a drug that not only lowers atherogenic lipoproteins but also lowers triglycerides [TGs]. That’s a distinguishing feature of this treatment,” compared with other agents that lower LDL cholesterol, Dr. Rosenson said. It could make evinacumab especially attractive for treating patients with diabetes, who often have elevated TG levels, he noted. But Dr. Eckel cautioned that a clinical benefit directly linked to TG lowering has not yet been proven.

The drug also cut HDL cholesterol by an average of as much as 31% from baseline, though the consequence of this effect isn’t clear. “I’m not worried about the HDL levels,” said Dr. Goldberg, who noted that changes in HDL cholesterol produced by drug treatment have often not shown discernible effects.

Reaching goals by IV or subcutaneous delivery

Another measure of evinacumab’s efficacy was the percentage of patients who fell below the LDL-cholesterol threshold of 70 mg/dL set by recommendations of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for the highest risk patients, and the less than 55 mg/dL goal set for similar patients by the European Society of Cardiology. Among the subcutaneously-treated patients, 64% achieved the goal of less than 70 mg/dL, and 49% hit the goal of less than 55 mg/dL. Among those who received IV treatment, 71% fell below the 70 mg/dL threshold, and 50% dropped below 55 mg/dL.

The good efficacy shown with subcutaneous dosing is critical, noted Dr. Eckel, as this represents a new dimension for evinacumab that had previously been tested only as an IV agent in patients with homozygous FH (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 20;383[8]:711-20).

“Subcutaneous delivery is needed for wide real world use,” Dr. Eckel noted in an interview.

Evinacumab’s role hangs on further studies

The path that evinacumab takes from here into U.S. practice is not yet clear, said Dr. Rosenson. He cited the approval earlier in 2020 of another LDL-lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol) that received U.S. regulatory approval for a similar patient population after studies that proved only lipid-lowering safety and efficacy, without any clinical-endpoint data. He wondered: “Will the [Food and Drug Administration] require a cardiovascular outcomes trial” for evinacumab?

The growing experience using the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies to treat hyperlipidemia has made clinicians comfortable with this general approach to lipid management, but if evinacumab never accumulates similar efficacy evidence that may relegate it to the backseat compared with the PCSK9 inhibitors for quite some time, suggested Dr. Goldberg, though she said she’d be willing to prescribe evinacumab to selected patients based on lipid-lowering evidence alone.

By providing an alternative mechanism for lipid lowering, evinacumab can serve as a useful add-on for patients not reaching their LDL-cholesterol goal with more established agents, thereby providing an alternative to LDL apheresis, which now serves as the lipid-lowering therapy of last resort, said both Dr. Rosenson and Dr. Goldberg.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to Regeneron, and has also  been a consultant to or received research funding from Amgen, 89Bio, Corvidia, CVS Caremark, Kowa, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Regeneron and Sanofi, research grants from Amarin, Amgen, Ionis/AKCEA, Novartis, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AKCEA, Esperion, Merck and Novartis. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to KOWA and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com 

Not all chronic systemic inflammatory diseases are equal enhancers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, according to a large case-control study.  

Current AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines cite three chronic inflammatory diseases as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk enhancers: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and HIV infection. But this study of those three diseases, along with three others marked by elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein (systemic sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), showed that chronic inflammatory diseases are not monolithic in terms of their associated risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD).

Indeed, two of the six inflammatory diseases – psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease – turned out to be not at all associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the 37,117-patient study. The highest-risk disease was SLE, not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, Arjun Sinha, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted in his presentation at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions. 

The study included 18,129 patients with one of the six chronic inflammatory diseases and 18,988 matched controls, none with CHD at baseline. All regularly received outpatient care at Northwestern during 2000-2019. There were 1,011 incident CHD events during a median of 3.5 years of follow-up. 

In a Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for demographics, insurance status, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total cholesterol, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, here’s how the chronic inflammatory diseases stacked up in terms of incident CHD and MI risks: 

• SLE: hazard ratio for CHD, 2.85; for MI, 4.76.
• Systemic sclerosis: HR for CHD, 2.14; for MI, 3.19.
• HIV: HR for CHD, 1.38; for MI, 1.69.
• Rheumatoid arthritis: HR for CHD, 1.22; for MI, 1.45.
• Psoriasis: no significant increase.
• Inflammatory bowel disease: no significant increase.

In an exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coinvestigators evaluated the risk of incident CHD stratified by disease severity. For lack of standardized disease severity scales, the investigators relied upon tertiles of CD4 T cell count in the HIV group and CRP in the others. The HR for new-onset CHD in the more than 5,000 patients with psoriasis didn’t vary by CRP tertile. However, there was a nonsignificant trend for greater disease severity, as reflected by CRP tertile, to be associated with increased incident CHD risk in the HIV and inflammatory bowel disease groups. 

In contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis who were in the top CRP tertile had a significantly greater risk of developing CHD than that of controls, with HRs of 2.11 in the rheumatoid arthritis group and 4.59 with systemic sclerosis, although patients in the other two tertiles weren’t at significantly increased risk. But all three tertiles of CRP in patients with SLE were associated with significantly increased CHD risk: 3.17-fold in the lowest tertile of lupus severity, 5.38-fold in the middle tertile, and 4.04-fold in the top tertile for inflammation. 

These findings could be used in clinical practice to fine-tune atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment based upon chronic inflammatory disease type and severity. That’s information which in turn can help guide the timing and intensity of preventive therapy for patients with each disease type. 

But studying the association between chronic systemic inflammatory diseases and CHD risk can be useful in additional ways, according to Dr. Sinha. These inflammatory diseases can serve as models of atherosclerosis that shed light on the non–lipid-related mechanisms involved in cardiovascular disease. 

“The gradient in risk may be hypothesis-generating with respect to which specific inflammatory pathways may contribute to CHD,” he explained. 

Each of these six chronic inflammatory diseases is characterized by a different form of major immune dysfunction, Dr. Sinha continued. A case in point is SLE, the inflammatory disease associated with the highest risk of CHD and MI. Lupus is characterized by a form of neutrophil dysfunction marked by increased formation and reduced degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps, or NETs, as well as by an increase in autoreactive B cells and dysfunctional CD4+ T helper cells. The increase in NETs of of particular interest because NETs have also been shown to contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, plaque erosion, and thrombosis. 

In another exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coworkers found that SLE patients with a neutrophil count above the median level were twice as likely to develop CHD than were those with a neutrophil count below the median. 

A better understanding of the upstream pathways linking NET formation in SLE and atherosclerosis could lead to development of new or repurposed medications that target immune dysfunction in order to curb atherosclerosis, said Dr. Sinha, whose study won the AHA’s Samuel A. Levine Early Career Clinical Investigator Award. 

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. 

bjancin@mdedge.com 

Not all chronic systemic inflammatory diseases are equal enhancers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, according to a large case-control study.  

Current AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines cite three chronic inflammatory diseases as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk enhancers: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and HIV infection. But this study of those three diseases, along with three others marked by elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein (systemic sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), showed that chronic inflammatory diseases are not monolithic in terms of their associated risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD).

Indeed, two of the six inflammatory diseases – psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease – turned out to be not at all associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the 37,117-patient study. The highest-risk disease was SLE, not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, Arjun Sinha, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted in his presentation at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions. 

The study included 18,129 patients with one of the six chronic inflammatory diseases and 18,988 matched controls, none with CHD at baseline. All regularly received outpatient care at Northwestern during 2000-2019. There were 1,011 incident CHD events during a median of 3.5 years of follow-up. 

In a Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for demographics, insurance status, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total cholesterol, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, here’s how the chronic inflammatory diseases stacked up in terms of incident CHD and MI risks: 

• SLE: hazard ratio for CHD, 2.85; for MI, 4.76.
• Systemic sclerosis: HR for CHD, 2.14; for MI, 3.19.
• HIV: HR for CHD, 1.38; for MI, 1.69.
• Rheumatoid arthritis: HR for CHD, 1.22; for MI, 1.45.
• Psoriasis: no significant increase.
• Inflammatory bowel disease: no significant increase.

In an exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coinvestigators evaluated the risk of incident CHD stratified by disease severity. For lack of standardized disease severity scales, the investigators relied upon tertiles of CD4 T cell count in the HIV group and CRP in the others. The HR for new-onset CHD in the more than 5,000 patients with psoriasis didn’t vary by CRP tertile. However, there was a nonsignificant trend for greater disease severity, as reflected by CRP tertile, to be associated with increased incident CHD risk in the HIV and inflammatory bowel disease groups. 

In contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis who were in the top CRP tertile had a significantly greater risk of developing CHD than that of controls, with HRs of 2.11 in the rheumatoid arthritis group and 4.59 with systemic sclerosis, although patients in the other two tertiles weren’t at significantly increased risk. But all three tertiles of CRP in patients with SLE were associated with significantly increased CHD risk: 3.17-fold in the lowest tertile of lupus severity, 5.38-fold in the middle tertile, and 4.04-fold in the top tertile for inflammation. 

These findings could be used in clinical practice to fine-tune atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment based upon chronic inflammatory disease type and severity. That’s information which in turn can help guide the timing and intensity of preventive therapy for patients with each disease type. 

But studying the association between chronic systemic inflammatory diseases and CHD risk can be useful in additional ways, according to Dr. Sinha. These inflammatory diseases can serve as models of atherosclerosis that shed light on the non–lipid-related mechanisms involved in cardiovascular disease. 

“The gradient in risk may be hypothesis-generating with respect to which specific inflammatory pathways may contribute to CHD,” he explained. 

Each of these six chronic inflammatory diseases is characterized by a different form of major immune dysfunction, Dr. Sinha continued. A case in point is SLE, the inflammatory disease associated with the highest risk of CHD and MI. Lupus is characterized by a form of neutrophil dysfunction marked by increased formation and reduced degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps, or NETs, as well as by an increase in autoreactive B cells and dysfunctional CD4+ T helper cells. The increase in NETs of of particular interest because NETs have also been shown to contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, plaque erosion, and thrombosis. 

In another exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coworkers found that SLE patients with a neutrophil count above the median level were twice as likely to develop CHD than were those with a neutrophil count below the median. 

A better understanding of the upstream pathways linking NET formation in SLE and atherosclerosis could lead to development of new or repurposed medications that target immune dysfunction in order to curb atherosclerosis, said Dr. Sinha, whose study won the AHA’s Samuel A. Levine Early Career Clinical Investigator Award. 

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. 

bjancin@mdedge.com 

Not all chronic systemic inflammatory diseases are equal enhancers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, according to a large case-control study.  

Current AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines cite three chronic inflammatory diseases as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk enhancers: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and HIV infection. But this study of those three diseases, along with three others marked by elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein (systemic sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), showed that chronic inflammatory diseases are not monolithic in terms of their associated risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD).

Indeed, two of the six inflammatory diseases – psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease – turned out to be not at all associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the 37,117-patient study. The highest-risk disease was SLE, not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, Arjun Sinha, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted in his presentation at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions. 

The study included 18,129 patients with one of the six chronic inflammatory diseases and 18,988 matched controls, none with CHD at baseline. All regularly received outpatient care at Northwestern during 2000-2019. There were 1,011 incident CHD events during a median of 3.5 years of follow-up. 

In a Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for demographics, insurance status, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total cholesterol, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, here’s how the chronic inflammatory diseases stacked up in terms of incident CHD and MI risks: 

• SLE: hazard ratio for CHD, 2.85; for MI, 4.76.
• Systemic sclerosis: HR for CHD, 2.14; for MI, 3.19.
• HIV: HR for CHD, 1.38; for MI, 1.69.
• Rheumatoid arthritis: HR for CHD, 1.22; for MI, 1.45.
• Psoriasis: no significant increase.
• Inflammatory bowel disease: no significant increase.

In an exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coinvestigators evaluated the risk of incident CHD stratified by disease severity. For lack of standardized disease severity scales, the investigators relied upon tertiles of CD4 T cell count in the HIV group and CRP in the others. The HR for new-onset CHD in the more than 5,000 patients with psoriasis didn’t vary by CRP tertile. However, there was a nonsignificant trend for greater disease severity, as reflected by CRP tertile, to be associated with increased incident CHD risk in the HIV and inflammatory bowel disease groups. 

In contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis who were in the top CRP tertile had a significantly greater risk of developing CHD than that of controls, with HRs of 2.11 in the rheumatoid arthritis group and 4.59 with systemic sclerosis, although patients in the other two tertiles weren’t at significantly increased risk. But all three tertiles of CRP in patients with SLE were associated with significantly increased CHD risk: 3.17-fold in the lowest tertile of lupus severity, 5.38-fold in the middle tertile, and 4.04-fold in the top tertile for inflammation. 

These findings could be used in clinical practice to fine-tune atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment based upon chronic inflammatory disease type and severity. That’s information which in turn can help guide the timing and intensity of preventive therapy for patients with each disease type. 

But studying the association between chronic systemic inflammatory diseases and CHD risk can be useful in additional ways, according to Dr. Sinha. These inflammatory diseases can serve as models of atherosclerosis that shed light on the non–lipid-related mechanisms involved in cardiovascular disease. 

“The gradient in risk may be hypothesis-generating with respect to which specific inflammatory pathways may contribute to CHD,” he explained. 

Each of these six chronic inflammatory diseases is characterized by a different form of major immune dysfunction, Dr. Sinha continued. A case in point is SLE, the inflammatory disease associated with the highest risk of CHD and MI. Lupus is characterized by a form of neutrophil dysfunction marked by increased formation and reduced degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps, or NETs, as well as by an increase in autoreactive B cells and dysfunctional CD4+ T helper cells. The increase in NETs of of particular interest because NETs have also been shown to contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, plaque erosion, and thrombosis. 

In another exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coworkers found that SLE patients with a neutrophil count above the median level were twice as likely to develop CHD than were those with a neutrophil count below the median. 

A better understanding of the upstream pathways linking NET formation in SLE and atherosclerosis could lead to development of new or repurposed medications that target immune dysfunction in order to curb atherosclerosis, said Dr. Sinha, whose study won the AHA’s Samuel A. Levine Early Career Clinical Investigator Award. 

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. 

bjancin@mdedge.com 

Individuals in the general population with high levels of silent coronary atherosclerosis can be successfully identified with a simple questionnaire that they can complete themselves at home, a new study suggests.  

The Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS) found that 40% of middle-aged adults without known heart disease had evidence of coronary atherosclerosis on coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and 13% had extensive atherosclerotic disease.

The authors found that the screening questionnaire could identify individuals who had extensive coronary atherosclerosis with a reasonably high predictive value.

Initial results from the study were presented today at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

“Our study is looking to see if we can estimate how many people in the general population have significant coronary atherosclerosis and therefore could benefit from preventative treatment,” lead author, Göran Bergström, MD, explained to Medscape Medical News. 

Bergström, who is professor and lead physician at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden, said there are no good data on this as yet. “There are studies of atherosclerosis burden in patients who have had a cardiovascular event, but our study was conducted in a random selection of the middle-aged general population who did not have symptoms of heart disease.”

“Our study also suggests that in future we may be able to identify these people with an online questionnaire, and those that reached a certain score could be referred for an imaging test,” he added.
SCAPIS included more than 30,000 men and women, age 50 to 64 years, who had no history of cardiovascular events or cardiac intervention. They were asked questions about sex, age, lifestyle, smoking, body measurements, cholesterol medication, and blood pressure to predict their risk for coronary artery disease.

Researchers then used CCTA images to examine patients’ arteries for the presence of plaque. More than 25,000 individuals from the original sample were successfully imaged.

Results showed that 40% of the middle-aged population had some coronary atherosclerosis and 5% had severe atherosclerosis, defined as the presence of a stenosis blocking 50% or more of blood flow in one of the coronary arteries.   

A second aim of the study was to use data from the questionnaire to develop a prediction model to identify people with widespread atherosclerosis — those with any type of stenosis in four different segments of their coronary arteries, who made up 13% of the population. 

The questionnaire included data on 120 different variables. Of these variables, around 100 could be assessed by the patients themselves and another 20 measurements could be performed in the clinic, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

The researchers then used artificial intelligence to assess which variables were associated with widespread atherosclerosis. This had an area under the curve (AUC, a measure of the predictive value) of 0.8.  

“An AUC of 1.0 would show a perfect prediction, and a value of 0.5 shows no value. A result of 0.8 shows reasonable predictive potential. This is an encouraging result and suggests this strategy could work,” Bergström said. 

“We know silent atherosclerosis is a big problem and causes sudden cardiac events in people who have not shown symptoms,” he said.

The goal is to identify these patients before they have an event and offer them preventive treatments. “At present we try and identify patients at high risk of cardiovascular events by using cholesterol and blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk scores such as Framingham. But this is not so effective,” Bergström explained.

“Using imaging such as CCTA, where you can actually see atherosclerotic plaque, could be better for prediction, but we can’t image everyone. So, we wanted to see whether we could narrow down the population who should receive imaging with a detailed questionnaire, and it looks like we can.”

The study found that including clinical measurements such as blood pressure and cholesterol did not add much to the predictive value for identifying people with extensive coronary atherosclerosis, a result that Bergström said was surprising.   

Which population to target?

Discussant of the study, Pamela Douglas, MD, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, congratulated the SCAPIS investigators on creating “a very rich data set for current and future study.”

“The SCAPIS study has already yielded novel data on the prevalence of coronary artery disease in the general population, and will address many critical questions over the long term,” she said.
But Douglas suggested that individuals with extensive coronary atherosclerosis were not the most appropriate target population to identify.

“The rationale for choosing this cutpoint is unclear as clinical risk/mortality is higher in all nonobstructive coronary artery disease, starting at one-vessel involvement,” she noted. “Therefore, effective preventive strategies likely need to start with detection and treatment of patients with even minimal plaque.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News, Bergström said this was a valid argument. “We plan to reanalyze our results with different populations as the target — that is something that we can do in the future.

But targeting everyone with just one coronary plaque is going to identify a large group — it was 40% of the population in our study. This will be too many people in whom to perform confirmatory CCTA imaging. It would be impractical to try and conduct cardiac imaging on that many people.”

Bergström noted that more data are needed on the danger of various levels of coronary atherosclerosis in this population who have not had any symptoms. 

“We don’t have this information at present, but we are continuing to follow our population and we will have data on cardiac events in a few years’ time. Then we will know which level of atherosclerosis we need to target. It will probably be somewhere in between the extensive levels we used in this first analysis (which occurred in 13% of people) and the 40% of people who showed just one area of plaque.”

This study is the first report from SCAPIS, a collaborative project between six Swedish universities with the following vision statement: to “reduce the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for generations to come.”

The SCAPIS project is funded by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. Bergström reports no disclosures. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals in the general population with high levels of silent coronary atherosclerosis can be successfully identified with a simple questionnaire that they can complete themselves at home, a new study suggests.  

The Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS) found that 40% of middle-aged adults without known heart disease had evidence of coronary atherosclerosis on coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and 13% had extensive atherosclerotic disease.

The authors found that the screening questionnaire could identify individuals who had extensive coronary atherosclerosis with a reasonably high predictive value.

Initial results from the study were presented today at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

“Our study is looking to see if we can estimate how many people in the general population have significant coronary atherosclerosis and therefore could benefit from preventative treatment,” lead author, Göran Bergström, MD, explained to Medscape Medical News. 

Bergström, who is professor and lead physician at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden, said there are no good data on this as yet. “There are studies of atherosclerosis burden in patients who have had a cardiovascular event, but our study was conducted in a random selection of the middle-aged general population who did not have symptoms of heart disease.”

“Our study also suggests that in future we may be able to identify these people with an online questionnaire, and those that reached a certain score could be referred for an imaging test,” he added.
SCAPIS included more than 30,000 men and women, age 50 to 64 years, who had no history of cardiovascular events or cardiac intervention. They were asked questions about sex, age, lifestyle, smoking, body measurements, cholesterol medication, and blood pressure to predict their risk for coronary artery disease.

Researchers then used CCTA images to examine patients’ arteries for the presence of plaque. More than 25,000 individuals from the original sample were successfully imaged.

Results showed that 40% of the middle-aged population had some coronary atherosclerosis and 5% had severe atherosclerosis, defined as the presence of a stenosis blocking 50% or more of blood flow in one of the coronary arteries.   

A second aim of the study was to use data from the questionnaire to develop a prediction model to identify people with widespread atherosclerosis — those with any type of stenosis in four different segments of their coronary arteries, who made up 13% of the population. 

The questionnaire included data on 120 different variables. Of these variables, around 100 could be assessed by the patients themselves and another 20 measurements could be performed in the clinic, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

The researchers then used artificial intelligence to assess which variables were associated with widespread atherosclerosis. This had an area under the curve (AUC, a measure of the predictive value) of 0.8.  

“An AUC of 1.0 would show a perfect prediction, and a value of 0.5 shows no value. A result of 0.8 shows reasonable predictive potential. This is an encouraging result and suggests this strategy could work,” Bergström said. 

“We know silent atherosclerosis is a big problem and causes sudden cardiac events in people who have not shown symptoms,” he said.

The goal is to identify these patients before they have an event and offer them preventive treatments. “At present we try and identify patients at high risk of cardiovascular events by using cholesterol and blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk scores such as Framingham. But this is not so effective,” Bergström explained.

“Using imaging such as CCTA, where you can actually see atherosclerotic plaque, could be better for prediction, but we can’t image everyone. So, we wanted to see whether we could narrow down the population who should receive imaging with a detailed questionnaire, and it looks like we can.”

The study found that including clinical measurements such as blood pressure and cholesterol did not add much to the predictive value for identifying people with extensive coronary atherosclerosis, a result that Bergström said was surprising.   

Which population to target?

Discussant of the study, Pamela Douglas, MD, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, congratulated the SCAPIS investigators on creating “a very rich data set for current and future study.”

“The SCAPIS study has already yielded novel data on the prevalence of coronary artery disease in the general population, and will address many critical questions over the long term,” she said.
But Douglas suggested that individuals with extensive coronary atherosclerosis were not the most appropriate target population to identify.

“The rationale for choosing this cutpoint is unclear as clinical risk/mortality is higher in all nonobstructive coronary artery disease, starting at one-vessel involvement,” she noted. “Therefore, effective preventive strategies likely need to start with detection and treatment of patients with even minimal plaque.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News, Bergström said this was a valid argument. “We plan to reanalyze our results with different populations as the target — that is something that we can do in the future.

But targeting everyone with just one coronary plaque is going to identify a large group — it was 40% of the population in our study. This will be too many people in whom to perform confirmatory CCTA imaging. It would be impractical to try and conduct cardiac imaging on that many people.”

Bergström noted that more data are needed on the danger of various levels of coronary atherosclerosis in this population who have not had any symptoms. 

“We don’t have this information at present, but we are continuing to follow our population and we will have data on cardiac events in a few years’ time. Then we will know which level of atherosclerosis we need to target. It will probably be somewhere in between the extensive levels we used in this first analysis (which occurred in 13% of people) and the 40% of people who showed just one area of plaque.”

This study is the first report from SCAPIS, a collaborative project between six Swedish universities with the following vision statement: to “reduce the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for generations to come.”

The SCAPIS project is funded by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. Bergström reports no disclosures. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals in the general population with high levels of silent coronary atherosclerosis can be successfully identified with a simple questionnaire that they can complete themselves at home, a new study suggests.  

The Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS) found that 40% of middle-aged adults without known heart disease had evidence of coronary atherosclerosis on coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and 13% had extensive atherosclerotic disease.

The authors found that the screening questionnaire could identify individuals who had extensive coronary atherosclerosis with a reasonably high predictive value.

Initial results from the study were presented today at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

“Our study is looking to see if we can estimate how many people in the general population have significant coronary atherosclerosis and therefore could benefit from preventative treatment,” lead author, Göran Bergström, MD, explained to Medscape Medical News. 

Bergström, who is professor and lead physician at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden, said there are no good data on this as yet. “There are studies of atherosclerosis burden in patients who have had a cardiovascular event, but our study was conducted in a random selection of the middle-aged general population who did not have symptoms of heart disease.”

“Our study also suggests that in future we may be able to identify these people with an online questionnaire, and those that reached a certain score could be referred for an imaging test,” he added.
SCAPIS included more than 30,000 men and women, age 50 to 64 years, who had no history of cardiovascular events or cardiac intervention. They were asked questions about sex, age, lifestyle, smoking, body measurements, cholesterol medication, and blood pressure to predict their risk for coronary artery disease.

Researchers then used CCTA images to examine patients’ arteries for the presence of plaque. More than 25,000 individuals from the original sample were successfully imaged.

Results showed that 40% of the middle-aged population had some coronary atherosclerosis and 5% had severe atherosclerosis, defined as the presence of a stenosis blocking 50% or more of blood flow in one of the coronary arteries.   

A second aim of the study was to use data from the questionnaire to develop a prediction model to identify people with widespread atherosclerosis — those with any type of stenosis in four different segments of their coronary arteries, who made up 13% of the population. 

The questionnaire included data on 120 different variables. Of these variables, around 100 could be assessed by the patients themselves and another 20 measurements could be performed in the clinic, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

The researchers then used artificial intelligence to assess which variables were associated with widespread atherosclerosis. This had an area under the curve (AUC, a measure of the predictive value) of 0.8.  

“An AUC of 1.0 would show a perfect prediction, and a value of 0.5 shows no value. A result of 0.8 shows reasonable predictive potential. This is an encouraging result and suggests this strategy could work,” Bergström said. 

“We know silent atherosclerosis is a big problem and causes sudden cardiac events in people who have not shown symptoms,” he said.

The goal is to identify these patients before they have an event and offer them preventive treatments. “At present we try and identify patients at high risk of cardiovascular events by using cholesterol and blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk scores such as Framingham. But this is not so effective,” Bergström explained.

“Using imaging such as CCTA, where you can actually see atherosclerotic plaque, could be better for prediction, but we can’t image everyone. So, we wanted to see whether we could narrow down the population who should receive imaging with a detailed questionnaire, and it looks like we can.”

The study found that including clinical measurements such as blood pressure and cholesterol did not add much to the predictive value for identifying people with extensive coronary atherosclerosis, a result that Bergström said was surprising.   

Which population to target?

Discussant of the study, Pamela Douglas, MD, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, congratulated the SCAPIS investigators on creating “a very rich data set for current and future study.”

“The SCAPIS study has already yielded novel data on the prevalence of coronary artery disease in the general population, and will address many critical questions over the long term,” she said.
But Douglas suggested that individuals with extensive coronary atherosclerosis were not the most appropriate target population to identify.

“The rationale for choosing this cutpoint is unclear as clinical risk/mortality is higher in all nonobstructive coronary artery disease, starting at one-vessel involvement,” she noted. “Therefore, effective preventive strategies likely need to start with detection and treatment of patients with even minimal plaque.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News, Bergström said this was a valid argument. “We plan to reanalyze our results with different populations as the target — that is something that we can do in the future.

But targeting everyone with just one coronary plaque is going to identify a large group — it was 40% of the population in our study. This will be too many people in whom to perform confirmatory CCTA imaging. It would be impractical to try and conduct cardiac imaging on that many people.”

Bergström noted that more data are needed on the danger of various levels of coronary atherosclerosis in this population who have not had any symptoms. 

“We don’t have this information at present, but we are continuing to follow our population and we will have data on cardiac events in a few years’ time. Then we will know which level of atherosclerosis we need to target. It will probably be somewhere in between the extensive levels we used in this first analysis (which occurred in 13% of people) and the 40% of people who showed just one area of plaque.”

This study is the first report from SCAPIS, a collaborative project between six Swedish universities with the following vision statement: to “reduce the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for generations to come.”

The SCAPIS project is funded by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. Bergström reports no disclosures. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.