Clinical Endocrinology News

A team of pulmonologists has synthesized the clinical and imaging characteristics of COVID-19 in children, and has devised recommendations for ordering imaging studies in suspected cases of the infection.

The review also included useful radiographic findings to help in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia from other respiratory infections. Alexandra M. Foust, DO, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues reported the summary of findings and recommendations in Pediatric Pulmonology.

“Pediatricians face numerous challenges created by increasing reports of severe COVID-19 related findings in affected children,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, of NYU Langone Health in Mineola, N.Y. “[The current review] represents a multinational collaboration to provide up to date information and key imaging findings to guide chest physicians caring for children with pneumonia symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Clinical presentation in children

In general, pediatric patients infected with the virus show milder symptoms compared with adults, and based on the limited evidence reported to date, the most common clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in children are rhinorrhea and/or nasal congestion, fever and cough with sore throat, fatigue or dyspnea, and diarrhea.

As with other viral pneumonias in children, the laboratory parameters are usually nonspecific; however, while the complete blood count (CBC) is often normal, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia have been reported in some cases of pediatric COVID-19, the authors noted.

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for initial diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab, followed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, they explained.
 

Role of imaging in diagnosis

The researchers reported that current recommendations from the American College of Radiology (ACR) do not include chest computed tomography (CT) or chest radiography (CXR) as a upfront test to diagnose pediatric COVID-19, but they may still have a role in clinical monitoring, especially in patients with a moderate to severe disease course.

The potential benefits of utilizing radiologic evaluation, such as establishing a baseline for monitoring disease progression, must be balanced with potential drawbacks, which include radiation exposure, and reduced availability of imaging resources owing to necessary cleaning and air turnover time.
 

Recommendations for ordering imaging studies

Based on the most recent international guidelines for pediatric COVID-19 patient management, the authors developed an algorithm for performing imaging studies in suspected cases of COVID-19 pneumonia.

The purpose of the tool is to support clinical decision-making around the utilization of CXR and CT to evaluate pediatric COVID-19 pneumonia.

“The step by step algorithm addresses the selection, sequence and timing of imaging studies with multiple images illustrating key findings of COVID-19 pneumonia in the pediatric age group,” said Dr. Cataletto. “By synthesizing the available imaging case series and guidelines, this primer provides a useful tool for the practicing pulmonologist,” she explained.
 

Key recommendations: CXR

“For pediatric patients with suspected or known COVID-19 infection with moderate to severe clinical symptoms requiring hospitalization (i.e., hypoxia, moderate or severe dyspnea, signs of sepsis, shock, cardiovascular compromise, altered mentation), CXR is usually indicated to establish an imaging baseline and to assess for an alternative diagnosis,” they recommended.

“Sequential CXRs may be helpful to assess pediatric patients with COVID-19 who demonstrate worsening clinical symptoms or to assess response to supportive therapy,” they wrote.
 

Key recommendations: CT

“Due to the increased radiation sensitivity of pediatric patients, chest CT is not recommended as an initial diagnostic test for pediatric patients with known or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia,” they explained.

The guide also included several considerations around the differential diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia from other pediatric lung disorders, including immune-related conditions, infectious etiologies, hematological dyscrasias, and inhalation-related lung injury.

As best practice recommendations for COVID-19 continue to evolve, the availability of practical clinical decision-making tools becomes essential to ensure optimal patient care.

No funding sources or financial disclosures were reported in the manuscript.

SOURCE: Foust AM et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 May 28. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24870.

A team of pulmonologists has synthesized the clinical and imaging characteristics of COVID-19 in children, and has devised recommendations for ordering imaging studies in suspected cases of the infection.

The review also included useful radiographic findings to help in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia from other respiratory infections. Alexandra M. Foust, DO, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues reported the summary of findings and recommendations in Pediatric Pulmonology.

“Pediatricians face numerous challenges created by increasing reports of severe COVID-19 related findings in affected children,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, of NYU Langone Health in Mineola, N.Y. “[The current review] represents a multinational collaboration to provide up to date information and key imaging findings to guide chest physicians caring for children with pneumonia symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Clinical presentation in children

In general, pediatric patients infected with the virus show milder symptoms compared with adults, and based on the limited evidence reported to date, the most common clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in children are rhinorrhea and/or nasal congestion, fever and cough with sore throat, fatigue or dyspnea, and diarrhea.

As with other viral pneumonias in children, the laboratory parameters are usually nonspecific; however, while the complete blood count (CBC) is often normal, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia have been reported in some cases of pediatric COVID-19, the authors noted.

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for initial diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab, followed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, they explained.
 

Role of imaging in diagnosis

The researchers reported that current recommendations from the American College of Radiology (ACR) do not include chest computed tomography (CT) or chest radiography (CXR) as a upfront test to diagnose pediatric COVID-19, but they may still have a role in clinical monitoring, especially in patients with a moderate to severe disease course.

The potential benefits of utilizing radiologic evaluation, such as establishing a baseline for monitoring disease progression, must be balanced with potential drawbacks, which include radiation exposure, and reduced availability of imaging resources owing to necessary cleaning and air turnover time.
 

Recommendations for ordering imaging studies

Based on the most recent international guidelines for pediatric COVID-19 patient management, the authors developed an algorithm for performing imaging studies in suspected cases of COVID-19 pneumonia.

The purpose of the tool is to support clinical decision-making around the utilization of CXR and CT to evaluate pediatric COVID-19 pneumonia.

“The step by step algorithm addresses the selection, sequence and timing of imaging studies with multiple images illustrating key findings of COVID-19 pneumonia in the pediatric age group,” said Dr. Cataletto. “By synthesizing the available imaging case series and guidelines, this primer provides a useful tool for the practicing pulmonologist,” she explained.
 

Key recommendations: CXR

“For pediatric patients with suspected or known COVID-19 infection with moderate to severe clinical symptoms requiring hospitalization (i.e., hypoxia, moderate or severe dyspnea, signs of sepsis, shock, cardiovascular compromise, altered mentation), CXR is usually indicated to establish an imaging baseline and to assess for an alternative diagnosis,” they recommended.

“Sequential CXRs may be helpful to assess pediatric patients with COVID-19 who demonstrate worsening clinical symptoms or to assess response to supportive therapy,” they wrote.
 

Key recommendations: CT

“Due to the increased radiation sensitivity of pediatric patients, chest CT is not recommended as an initial diagnostic test for pediatric patients with known or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia,” they explained.

The guide also included several considerations around the differential diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia from other pediatric lung disorders, including immune-related conditions, infectious etiologies, hematological dyscrasias, and inhalation-related lung injury.

As best practice recommendations for COVID-19 continue to evolve, the availability of practical clinical decision-making tools becomes essential to ensure optimal patient care.

No funding sources or financial disclosures were reported in the manuscript.

SOURCE: Foust AM et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 May 28. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24870.

A team of pulmonologists has synthesized the clinical and imaging characteristics of COVID-19 in children, and has devised recommendations for ordering imaging studies in suspected cases of the infection.

The review also included useful radiographic findings to help in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia from other respiratory infections. Alexandra M. Foust, DO, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues reported the summary of findings and recommendations in Pediatric Pulmonology.

“Pediatricians face numerous challenges created by increasing reports of severe COVID-19 related findings in affected children,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, of NYU Langone Health in Mineola, N.Y. “[The current review] represents a multinational collaboration to provide up to date information and key imaging findings to guide chest physicians caring for children with pneumonia symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Clinical presentation in children

In general, pediatric patients infected with the virus show milder symptoms compared with adults, and based on the limited evidence reported to date, the most common clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in children are rhinorrhea and/or nasal congestion, fever and cough with sore throat, fatigue or dyspnea, and diarrhea.

As with other viral pneumonias in children, the laboratory parameters are usually nonspecific; however, while the complete blood count (CBC) is often normal, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia have been reported in some cases of pediatric COVID-19, the authors noted.

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for initial diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab, followed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, they explained.
 

Role of imaging in diagnosis

The researchers reported that current recommendations from the American College of Radiology (ACR) do not include chest computed tomography (CT) or chest radiography (CXR) as a upfront test to diagnose pediatric COVID-19, but they may still have a role in clinical monitoring, especially in patients with a moderate to severe disease course.

The potential benefits of utilizing radiologic evaluation, such as establishing a baseline for monitoring disease progression, must be balanced with potential drawbacks, which include radiation exposure, and reduced availability of imaging resources owing to necessary cleaning and air turnover time.
 

Recommendations for ordering imaging studies

Based on the most recent international guidelines for pediatric COVID-19 patient management, the authors developed an algorithm for performing imaging studies in suspected cases of COVID-19 pneumonia.

The purpose of the tool is to support clinical decision-making around the utilization of CXR and CT to evaluate pediatric COVID-19 pneumonia.

“The step by step algorithm addresses the selection, sequence and timing of imaging studies with multiple images illustrating key findings of COVID-19 pneumonia in the pediatric age group,” said Dr. Cataletto. “By synthesizing the available imaging case series and guidelines, this primer provides a useful tool for the practicing pulmonologist,” she explained.
 

Key recommendations: CXR

“For pediatric patients with suspected or known COVID-19 infection with moderate to severe clinical symptoms requiring hospitalization (i.e., hypoxia, moderate or severe dyspnea, signs of sepsis, shock, cardiovascular compromise, altered mentation), CXR is usually indicated to establish an imaging baseline and to assess for an alternative diagnosis,” they recommended.

“Sequential CXRs may be helpful to assess pediatric patients with COVID-19 who demonstrate worsening clinical symptoms or to assess response to supportive therapy,” they wrote.
 

Key recommendations: CT

“Due to the increased radiation sensitivity of pediatric patients, chest CT is not recommended as an initial diagnostic test for pediatric patients with known or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia,” they explained.

The guide also included several considerations around the differential diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia from other pediatric lung disorders, including immune-related conditions, infectious etiologies, hematological dyscrasias, and inhalation-related lung injury.

As best practice recommendations for COVID-19 continue to evolve, the availability of practical clinical decision-making tools becomes essential to ensure optimal patient care.

No funding sources or financial disclosures were reported in the manuscript.

SOURCE: Foust AM et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 May 28. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24870.

ED visits for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis dropped substantially in the 10 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency on March 13, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Compared with the 10-week period from Jan. 5 to March 14, ED visits were down by 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis from March 15 to May 23, Samantha J. Lange, MPH, and associates at the CDC reported June 22 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“A short-term decline of this magnitude … is biologically implausible for MI and stroke, especially for older adults, and unlikely for hyperglycemic crisis, and the finding suggests that patients with these conditions either could not access care or were delaying or avoiding seeking care during the early pandemic period,” they wrote.

The largest decreases in the actual number of visits for MI occurred among both men (down by 2,114, –24%) and women (down by 1,459, –25%) aged 65-74 years. For stroke, men aged 65-74 years had 1,406 (–19%) fewer visits to the ED and women 75-84 years had 1,642 (–23%) fewer visits, the CDC researchers said.

For hypoglycemic crisis, the largest declines during the early pandemic period occurred among younger adults: ED visits for men and women aged 18-44 years were down, respectively, by 419 (–8%) and 775 (–16%), they reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

“Decreases in ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis might be less striking because patient recognition of this crisis is typically augmented by home glucose monitoring and not reliant upon symptoms alone, as is the case for MI and stroke,” Ms. Lange and her associates noted.

Charting weekly visit numbers showed that the drop for all three conditions actually started the week before the emergency was declared and reached its nadir the week after (March 22) for MI and 2 weeks later (March 29) for stroke and hypoglycemic crisis.

Visits for hypoglycemic crisis have largely returned to normal since those low points, but MI and stroke visits “remain below prepandemic levels” despite gradual increases through April and May, they said.

It has been reported that “deaths not associated with confirmed or probable COVID-19 might have been directly or indirectly attributed to the pandemic. The striking decline in ED visits for acute life-threatening conditions might partially explain observed excess mortality not associated with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

ED visits for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis dropped substantially in the 10 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency on March 13, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Compared with the 10-week period from Jan. 5 to March 14, ED visits were down by 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis from March 15 to May 23, Samantha J. Lange, MPH, and associates at the CDC reported June 22 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“A short-term decline of this magnitude … is biologically implausible for MI and stroke, especially for older adults, and unlikely for hyperglycemic crisis, and the finding suggests that patients with these conditions either could not access care or were delaying or avoiding seeking care during the early pandemic period,” they wrote.

The largest decreases in the actual number of visits for MI occurred among both men (down by 2,114, –24%) and women (down by 1,459, –25%) aged 65-74 years. For stroke, men aged 65-74 years had 1,406 (–19%) fewer visits to the ED and women 75-84 years had 1,642 (–23%) fewer visits, the CDC researchers said.

For hypoglycemic crisis, the largest declines during the early pandemic period occurred among younger adults: ED visits for men and women aged 18-44 years were down, respectively, by 419 (–8%) and 775 (–16%), they reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

“Decreases in ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis might be less striking because patient recognition of this crisis is typically augmented by home glucose monitoring and not reliant upon symptoms alone, as is the case for MI and stroke,” Ms. Lange and her associates noted.

Charting weekly visit numbers showed that the drop for all three conditions actually started the week before the emergency was declared and reached its nadir the week after (March 22) for MI and 2 weeks later (March 29) for stroke and hypoglycemic crisis.

Visits for hypoglycemic crisis have largely returned to normal since those low points, but MI and stroke visits “remain below prepandemic levels” despite gradual increases through April and May, they said.

It has been reported that “deaths not associated with confirmed or probable COVID-19 might have been directly or indirectly attributed to the pandemic. The striking decline in ED visits for acute life-threatening conditions might partially explain observed excess mortality not associated with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

ED visits for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis dropped substantially in the 10 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency on March 13, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Compared with the 10-week period from Jan. 5 to March 14, ED visits were down by 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis from March 15 to May 23, Samantha J. Lange, MPH, and associates at the CDC reported June 22 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“A short-term decline of this magnitude … is biologically implausible for MI and stroke, especially for older adults, and unlikely for hyperglycemic crisis, and the finding suggests that patients with these conditions either could not access care or were delaying or avoiding seeking care during the early pandemic period,” they wrote.

The largest decreases in the actual number of visits for MI occurred among both men (down by 2,114, –24%) and women (down by 1,459, –25%) aged 65-74 years. For stroke, men aged 65-74 years had 1,406 (–19%) fewer visits to the ED and women 75-84 years had 1,642 (–23%) fewer visits, the CDC researchers said.

For hypoglycemic crisis, the largest declines during the early pandemic period occurred among younger adults: ED visits for men and women aged 18-44 years were down, respectively, by 419 (–8%) and 775 (–16%), they reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

“Decreases in ED visits for hyperglycemic crisis might be less striking because patient recognition of this crisis is typically augmented by home glucose monitoring and not reliant upon symptoms alone, as is the case for MI and stroke,” Ms. Lange and her associates noted.

Charting weekly visit numbers showed that the drop for all three conditions actually started the week before the emergency was declared and reached its nadir the week after (March 22) for MI and 2 weeks later (March 29) for stroke and hypoglycemic crisis.

Visits for hypoglycemic crisis have largely returned to normal since those low points, but MI and stroke visits “remain below prepandemic levels” despite gradual increases through April and May, they said.

It has been reported that “deaths not associated with confirmed or probable COVID-19 might have been directly or indirectly attributed to the pandemic. The striking decline in ED visits for acute life-threatening conditions might partially explain observed excess mortality not associated with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.

Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.

The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.

“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.

The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.

Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
 

Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity

The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.

But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.

The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.

The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
 

Management implications

The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.

Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”

Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.

“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.

Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.

It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.

Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.

The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.

“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.

The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.

Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
 

Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity

The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.

But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.

The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.

The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
 

Management implications

The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.

Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”

Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.

“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.

Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.

It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.

Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.

The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.

“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.

The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.

Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
 

Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity

The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.

But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.

The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.

The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
 

Management implications

The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.

Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”

Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.

“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.

Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of metoclopramide for relief of symptoms of diabetic gastroparesis in adults.

The product, called Gimoti (Evoke Pharma) delivers metoclopramide through nasal administration, offering an advantage over oral administration, which can be impeded because of slowed stomach emptying, the company said in an announcement of the approval. The delivery system provides 15 mg metoclopramide in each 70-mcL spray, which can be taken 30 minutes before each meal and at bedtime for 2-8 weeks, depending on symptomatic response, according to Gimoti’s prescribing information.

Metoclopramide, a dopamine-2 antagonist, has been available for 4 decades in oral and injection formulations. It carries a risk of developing tardive dyskinesia – a serious, often-irreversible movement disorder – that increases with duration of treatment. Therefore, use of the drug should not exceed 12 weeks. Other contraindications include a history of tardive dyskinesia, when stimulation of GI motility might be dangerous, pheochromocytoma and catecholamine-releasing paragangliomas, and epilepsy.

Henry Parkman, MD, who was involved with clinical trials leading to the approval, explained in the Evoke statement that “patients with gastroparesis suffer from characteristic symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, bloating, early satiety, as well as vomiting which can be severe and debilitating. These patients often have erratic absorption of orally administered drugs because of delayed gastric emptying.

“Unlike oral medications, Gimoti is administered nasally, bypassing the diseased GI track, allowing the drug to enter the bloodstream directly and therefore may provide predictable delivery of the therapy,” adds Dr. Parkman, chair and director of the Gastroenterology Motility Laboratory at Temple University, Philadelphia.

Gimoti will be available commercially in the fourth quarter of this year, according to Evoke.

chackett@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of metoclopramide for relief of symptoms of diabetic gastroparesis in adults.

The product, called Gimoti (Evoke Pharma) delivers metoclopramide through nasal administration, offering an advantage over oral administration, which can be impeded because of slowed stomach emptying, the company said in an announcement of the approval. The delivery system provides 15 mg metoclopramide in each 70-mcL spray, which can be taken 30 minutes before each meal and at bedtime for 2-8 weeks, depending on symptomatic response, according to Gimoti’s prescribing information.

Metoclopramide, a dopamine-2 antagonist, has been available for 4 decades in oral and injection formulations. It carries a risk of developing tardive dyskinesia – a serious, often-irreversible movement disorder – that increases with duration of treatment. Therefore, use of the drug should not exceed 12 weeks. Other contraindications include a history of tardive dyskinesia, when stimulation of GI motility might be dangerous, pheochromocytoma and catecholamine-releasing paragangliomas, and epilepsy.

Henry Parkman, MD, who was involved with clinical trials leading to the approval, explained in the Evoke statement that “patients with gastroparesis suffer from characteristic symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, bloating, early satiety, as well as vomiting which can be severe and debilitating. These patients often have erratic absorption of orally administered drugs because of delayed gastric emptying.

“Unlike oral medications, Gimoti is administered nasally, bypassing the diseased GI track, allowing the drug to enter the bloodstream directly and therefore may provide predictable delivery of the therapy,” adds Dr. Parkman, chair and director of the Gastroenterology Motility Laboratory at Temple University, Philadelphia.

Gimoti will be available commercially in the fourth quarter of this year, according to Evoke.

chackett@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of metoclopramide for relief of symptoms of diabetic gastroparesis in adults.

The product, called Gimoti (Evoke Pharma) delivers metoclopramide through nasal administration, offering an advantage over oral administration, which can be impeded because of slowed stomach emptying, the company said in an announcement of the approval. The delivery system provides 15 mg metoclopramide in each 70-mcL spray, which can be taken 30 minutes before each meal and at bedtime for 2-8 weeks, depending on symptomatic response, according to Gimoti’s prescribing information.

Metoclopramide, a dopamine-2 antagonist, has been available for 4 decades in oral and injection formulations. It carries a risk of developing tardive dyskinesia – a serious, often-irreversible movement disorder – that increases with duration of treatment. Therefore, use of the drug should not exceed 12 weeks. Other contraindications include a history of tardive dyskinesia, when stimulation of GI motility might be dangerous, pheochromocytoma and catecholamine-releasing paragangliomas, and epilepsy.

Henry Parkman, MD, who was involved with clinical trials leading to the approval, explained in the Evoke statement that “patients with gastroparesis suffer from characteristic symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, bloating, early satiety, as well as vomiting which can be severe and debilitating. These patients often have erratic absorption of orally administered drugs because of delayed gastric emptying.

“Unlike oral medications, Gimoti is administered nasally, bypassing the diseased GI track, allowing the drug to enter the bloodstream directly and therefore may provide predictable delivery of the therapy,” adds Dr. Parkman, chair and director of the Gastroenterology Motility Laboratory at Temple University, Philadelphia.

Gimoti will be available commercially in the fourth quarter of this year, according to Evoke.

chackett@mdedge.com

Potentially preventable inpatient admissions accounted for almost 9% of all adult hospital costs in 2017, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

That year, there were 27.4 million inpatient visits by adults with a total cost of $380.1 billion, although obstetric stays were not included in the analysis. Of those inpatient admissions, 3.5 million (12.9%) were deemed to be “avoidable, in part, through timely and quality primary and preventive care,” Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and H. Joanna Jiang, PhD, said in a recent AHRQ statistical brief.

The charges for those 3.5 million visits came to $33.7 billion, or 8.9% of aggregate hospital costs in 2017, based on data from the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s state inpatient databases.

“Determining the volume and costs of potentially preventable inpatient stays can identify where potential cost savings might be found associated with reducing these hospitalizations overall and among specific subpopulations,” the investigators pointed out.

Of the seven conditions that are potentially avoidable, heart failure was the most expensive, producing more than 1.1 million inpatient admissions at a cost of $11.2 billion. Diabetes was next with a cost of almost $7.4 billion, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at nearly $7.3 billion, they said.

Those three conditions, along with hypertension and asthma in younger adults, brought the total cost of the preventable-stay equation’s chronic side to $27.3 billion in 2017, versus $6.4 billion for the two acute conditions, community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections, said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Dr. Jiang of the AHRQ.

The rate of potentially avoidable stays for chronic conditions was higher for men (1,112/100,000 population) than for women (954/100,000), but women had a higher rate for acute conditions, 346 vs. 257, which made the overall rates similar (1,369 for men and 1,300 for women), they reported.

Differences by race/ethnicity were more striking. The rate of potentially avoidable stays for blacks was 2,573/100,000 in 2017, compared with 1,315 for Hispanics, 1,173 for whites, and 581 for Asians/Pacific Islanders. The considerable margins between those figures, however, were far eclipsed by the “other” category, which had 4,911 stays per 100,000, the researchers said.

Large disparities also can be seen when looking at community-level income. Communities with income in the lowest quartile had a preventable-hospitalization rate of 2,013/100,000, and the rate dropped with each successive quartile until it reached 878/100,000 for the highest-income communities, according to the report.

“High hospital admission rates for these conditions may indicate areas where changes to the healthcare delivery system could be implemented to improve patient outcomes and lower costs,” Dr. McDermott and Dr. Jiang wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: McDermott KW and Jiang HJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #259. June 2020.

Potentially preventable inpatient admissions accounted for almost 9% of all adult hospital costs in 2017, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

That year, there were 27.4 million inpatient visits by adults with a total cost of $380.1 billion, although obstetric stays were not included in the analysis. Of those inpatient admissions, 3.5 million (12.9%) were deemed to be “avoidable, in part, through timely and quality primary and preventive care,” Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and H. Joanna Jiang, PhD, said in a recent AHRQ statistical brief.

The charges for those 3.5 million visits came to $33.7 billion, or 8.9% of aggregate hospital costs in 2017, based on data from the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s state inpatient databases.

“Determining the volume and costs of potentially preventable inpatient stays can identify where potential cost savings might be found associated with reducing these hospitalizations overall and among specific subpopulations,” the investigators pointed out.

Of the seven conditions that are potentially avoidable, heart failure was the most expensive, producing more than 1.1 million inpatient admissions at a cost of $11.2 billion. Diabetes was next with a cost of almost $7.4 billion, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at nearly $7.3 billion, they said.

Those three conditions, along with hypertension and asthma in younger adults, brought the total cost of the preventable-stay equation’s chronic side to $27.3 billion in 2017, versus $6.4 billion for the two acute conditions, community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections, said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Dr. Jiang of the AHRQ.

The rate of potentially avoidable stays for chronic conditions was higher for men (1,112/100,000 population) than for women (954/100,000), but women had a higher rate for acute conditions, 346 vs. 257, which made the overall rates similar (1,369 for men and 1,300 for women), they reported.

Differences by race/ethnicity were more striking. The rate of potentially avoidable stays for blacks was 2,573/100,000 in 2017, compared with 1,315 for Hispanics, 1,173 for whites, and 581 for Asians/Pacific Islanders. The considerable margins between those figures, however, were far eclipsed by the “other” category, which had 4,911 stays per 100,000, the researchers said.

Large disparities also can be seen when looking at community-level income. Communities with income in the lowest quartile had a preventable-hospitalization rate of 2,013/100,000, and the rate dropped with each successive quartile until it reached 878/100,000 for the highest-income communities, according to the report.

“High hospital admission rates for these conditions may indicate areas where changes to the healthcare delivery system could be implemented to improve patient outcomes and lower costs,” Dr. McDermott and Dr. Jiang wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: McDermott KW and Jiang HJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #259. June 2020.

Potentially preventable inpatient admissions accounted for almost 9% of all adult hospital costs in 2017, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

That year, there were 27.4 million inpatient visits by adults with a total cost of $380.1 billion, although obstetric stays were not included in the analysis. Of those inpatient admissions, 3.5 million (12.9%) were deemed to be “avoidable, in part, through timely and quality primary and preventive care,” Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and H. Joanna Jiang, PhD, said in a recent AHRQ statistical brief.

The charges for those 3.5 million visits came to $33.7 billion, or 8.9% of aggregate hospital costs in 2017, based on data from the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s state inpatient databases.

“Determining the volume and costs of potentially preventable inpatient stays can identify where potential cost savings might be found associated with reducing these hospitalizations overall and among specific subpopulations,” the investigators pointed out.

Of the seven conditions that are potentially avoidable, heart failure was the most expensive, producing more than 1.1 million inpatient admissions at a cost of $11.2 billion. Diabetes was next with a cost of almost $7.4 billion, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at nearly $7.3 billion, they said.

Those three conditions, along with hypertension and asthma in younger adults, brought the total cost of the preventable-stay equation’s chronic side to $27.3 billion in 2017, versus $6.4 billion for the two acute conditions, community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections, said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Dr. Jiang of the AHRQ.

The rate of potentially avoidable stays for chronic conditions was higher for men (1,112/100,000 population) than for women (954/100,000), but women had a higher rate for acute conditions, 346 vs. 257, which made the overall rates similar (1,369 for men and 1,300 for women), they reported.

Differences by race/ethnicity were more striking. The rate of potentially avoidable stays for blacks was 2,573/100,000 in 2017, compared with 1,315 for Hispanics, 1,173 for whites, and 581 for Asians/Pacific Islanders. The considerable margins between those figures, however, were far eclipsed by the “other” category, which had 4,911 stays per 100,000, the researchers said.

Large disparities also can be seen when looking at community-level income. Communities with income in the lowest quartile had a preventable-hospitalization rate of 2,013/100,000, and the rate dropped with each successive quartile until it reached 878/100,000 for the highest-income communities, according to the report.

“High hospital admission rates for these conditions may indicate areas where changes to the healthcare delivery system could be implemented to improve patient outcomes and lower costs,” Dr. McDermott and Dr. Jiang wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: McDermott KW and Jiang HJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #259. June 2020.

Good news: High cholesterol is down in the United States. More good news: Low HDL cholesterol is down in the United States.

The prevalence of high total cholesterol in adults aged 20 years and older dropped from 18.3% in 1999-2000 to 10.5% in 2017-2018. And starting in 2007-2008, the prevalence of low HDL cholesterol declined from 22.2% to 16.0% in 2017-2018, the National Center for Health Statistics reported.

HDL cholesterol data before 2007 were not presented because of changes in laboratories and methods, but both trends are significant, and the decline in high total cholesterol means that the Healthy People 2020 goal of dropping prevalence to 13.5% has been met, said Margaret D. Carroll, MSPH, and Cheryl D. Fryar, MSPH, of the NCHS.

The demographic details, however, show some disparities hidden by the broader measures. The prevalence of low HDL cholesterol for women in 2015-2018 was 8.5%, but for men it was 26.6%, the NCHS investigators said.

And that Healthy People 2020 goal for total cholesterol? Age makes a difference: 7.5% of adults aged 20-39 years had high total cholesterol in 2015-2018, as did 11.4% of those aged 60 years and older, but those aged 40-59 years had a significantly higher prevalence of 15.7%, they reported.

Race/ethnicity was also a factor. Prevalence of low HDL was similar for white (16.6%) and Asian (15.8%) adults in 2015-2018, but black adults’ low HDL prevalence was significantly lower (11.9%) and Hispanics’ was significantly higher (21.9%), the researchers said.

The analysis was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The investigators defined high total cholesterol as a level of 240 mg/dL or more, and low HDL cholesterol as less than 40 mg/dL. LDL cholesterol was not included in the analysis.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Good news: High cholesterol is down in the United States. More good news: Low HDL cholesterol is down in the United States.

The prevalence of high total cholesterol in adults aged 20 years and older dropped from 18.3% in 1999-2000 to 10.5% in 2017-2018. And starting in 2007-2008, the prevalence of low HDL cholesterol declined from 22.2% to 16.0% in 2017-2018, the National Center for Health Statistics reported.

HDL cholesterol data before 2007 were not presented because of changes in laboratories and methods, but both trends are significant, and the decline in high total cholesterol means that the Healthy People 2020 goal of dropping prevalence to 13.5% has been met, said Margaret D. Carroll, MSPH, and Cheryl D. Fryar, MSPH, of the NCHS.

The demographic details, however, show some disparities hidden by the broader measures. The prevalence of low HDL cholesterol for women in 2015-2018 was 8.5%, but for men it was 26.6%, the NCHS investigators said.

And that Healthy People 2020 goal for total cholesterol? Age makes a difference: 7.5% of adults aged 20-39 years had high total cholesterol in 2015-2018, as did 11.4% of those aged 60 years and older, but those aged 40-59 years had a significantly higher prevalence of 15.7%, they reported.

Race/ethnicity was also a factor. Prevalence of low HDL was similar for white (16.6%) and Asian (15.8%) adults in 2015-2018, but black adults’ low HDL prevalence was significantly lower (11.9%) and Hispanics’ was significantly higher (21.9%), the researchers said.

The analysis was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The investigators defined high total cholesterol as a level of 240 mg/dL or more, and low HDL cholesterol as less than 40 mg/dL. LDL cholesterol was not included in the analysis.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Good news: High cholesterol is down in the United States. More good news: Low HDL cholesterol is down in the United States.

The prevalence of high total cholesterol in adults aged 20 years and older dropped from 18.3% in 1999-2000 to 10.5% in 2017-2018. And starting in 2007-2008, the prevalence of low HDL cholesterol declined from 22.2% to 16.0% in 2017-2018, the National Center for Health Statistics reported.

HDL cholesterol data before 2007 were not presented because of changes in laboratories and methods, but both trends are significant, and the decline in high total cholesterol means that the Healthy People 2020 goal of dropping prevalence to 13.5% has been met, said Margaret D. Carroll, MSPH, and Cheryl D. Fryar, MSPH, of the NCHS.

The demographic details, however, show some disparities hidden by the broader measures. The prevalence of low HDL cholesterol for women in 2015-2018 was 8.5%, but for men it was 26.6%, the NCHS investigators said.

And that Healthy People 2020 goal for total cholesterol? Age makes a difference: 7.5% of adults aged 20-39 years had high total cholesterol in 2015-2018, as did 11.4% of those aged 60 years and older, but those aged 40-59 years had a significantly higher prevalence of 15.7%, they reported.

Race/ethnicity was also a factor. Prevalence of low HDL was similar for white (16.6%) and Asian (15.8%) adults in 2015-2018, but black adults’ low HDL prevalence was significantly lower (11.9%) and Hispanics’ was significantly higher (21.9%), the researchers said.

The analysis was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The investigators defined high total cholesterol as a level of 240 mg/dL or more, and low HDL cholesterol as less than 40 mg/dL. LDL cholesterol was not included in the analysis.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Prominent female physicians are handing over their social media platforms today to black female physicians as part of a campaign called #ShareTheMicNowMed.

The social media event, which will play out on both Twitter and Instagram, is an offshoot of #ShareTheMicNow, held earlier this month. For that event, more than 90 women, including A-list celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Julia Roberts, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, swapped accounts with women of color, such as “I’m Still Here” author Austin Channing Brown, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, and #MeToo founder Tarana Burke.

The physician event will feature 10 teams of two, with one physician handing over her account to her black female counterpart for the day. The takeover will allow the black physician to share her thoughts about the successes and challenges she faces as a woman of color in medicine.

“It was such an honor to be contacted by Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, to participate in an event that has a goal of connecting like-minded women from various backgrounds to share a diverse perspective with a different audience,” Minnesota family medicine physician Jay-Sheree Allen, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “This event is not only incredibly important but timely.”

Participants say the goal of the takeovers is to amplify the reach and voice of black women in medicine while crossing boundaries and empowering others to do the same. Only about 5% of all active physicians in 2018 identified as Black or African American, according to a report by the Association of American Medical Colleges. And of those, just over a third are female, the report found.

“I think that as we hear those small numbers we often celebrate the success of those people without looking back and understanding where all of the barriers are that are limiting talented black women from entering medicine at every stage,” another campaign participant, Chicago pediatrician Rebekah Fenton, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Allen says that, amid continuing worldwide protests over racial injustice, prompted by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody last month, the online event is very timely and an important way to advocate for black lives and engage in a productive conversation.

Prominent female physicians are handing over their social media platforms today to black female physicians as part of a campaign called #ShareTheMicNowMed.

The social media event, which will play out on both Twitter and Instagram, is an offshoot of #ShareTheMicNow, held earlier this month. For that event, more than 90 women, including A-list celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Julia Roberts, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, swapped accounts with women of color, such as “I’m Still Here” author Austin Channing Brown, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, and #MeToo founder Tarana Burke.

The physician event will feature 10 teams of two, with one physician handing over her account to her black female counterpart for the day. The takeover will allow the black physician to share her thoughts about the successes and challenges she faces as a woman of color in medicine.

“It was such an honor to be contacted by Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, to participate in an event that has a goal of connecting like-minded women from various backgrounds to share a diverse perspective with a different audience,” Minnesota family medicine physician Jay-Sheree Allen, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “This event is not only incredibly important but timely.”

Participants say the goal of the takeovers is to amplify the reach and voice of black women in medicine while crossing boundaries and empowering others to do the same. Only about 5% of all active physicians in 2018 identified as Black or African American, according to a report by the Association of American Medical Colleges. And of those, just over a third are female, the report found.

“I think that as we hear those small numbers we often celebrate the success of those people without looking back and understanding where all of the barriers are that are limiting talented black women from entering medicine at every stage,” another campaign participant, Chicago pediatrician Rebekah Fenton, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Allen says that, amid continuing worldwide protests over racial injustice, prompted by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody last month, the online event is very timely and an important way to advocate for black lives and engage in a productive conversation.

Prominent female physicians are handing over their social media platforms today to black female physicians as part of a campaign called #ShareTheMicNowMed.

The social media event, which will play out on both Twitter and Instagram, is an offshoot of #ShareTheMicNow, held earlier this month. For that event, more than 90 women, including A-list celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Julia Roberts, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, swapped accounts with women of color, such as “I’m Still Here” author Austin Channing Brown, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, and #MeToo founder Tarana Burke.

The physician event will feature 10 teams of two, with one physician handing over her account to her black female counterpart for the day. The takeover will allow the black physician to share her thoughts about the successes and challenges she faces as a woman of color in medicine.

“It was such an honor to be contacted by Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, to participate in an event that has a goal of connecting like-minded women from various backgrounds to share a diverse perspective with a different audience,” Minnesota family medicine physician Jay-Sheree Allen, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “This event is not only incredibly important but timely.”

Participants say the goal of the takeovers is to amplify the reach and voice of black women in medicine while crossing boundaries and empowering others to do the same. Only about 5% of all active physicians in 2018 identified as Black or African American, according to a report by the Association of American Medical Colleges. And of those, just over a third are female, the report found.

“I think that as we hear those small numbers we often celebrate the success of those people without looking back and understanding where all of the barriers are that are limiting talented black women from entering medicine at every stage,” another campaign participant, Chicago pediatrician Rebekah Fenton, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Allen says that, amid continuing worldwide protests over racial injustice, prompted by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody last month, the online event is very timely and an important way to advocate for black lives and engage in a productive conversation.

In an analysis of four phase 3 trials, the oral lipid-lowering drug bempedoic acid (Nexletol; Esperion) did not worsen glycemic control or increase the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

As previously reported, this first-in-class drug, which acts by inhibiting ATP-citrate lyase, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2020.

Lawrence A. Leiter MD, from the University of Toronto, delivered the findings of this latest analysis in an oral presentation at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

“The current study is important as it shows overall consistent efficacy and safety regardless of glycemic status and no increase in new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Leiter said in an interview.

There is interest in how lipid-lowering drugs might affect glycemia because “meta-analyses have shown about a 10% increased risk of new-onset diabetes in statin users, although the absolute increased risk is 1 extra case per 255 treated patients [in whom one would expect 5.4 cardiovascular events to be prevented by the statin],” he noted.

In a comment, John R. Guyton, MD, from Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed that the new study demonstrates that “patients with diabetes and prediabetes respond to bempedoic acid with LDL cholesterol lowering that is similar to that in patients with normal glucose tolerance.”

Although “statins have a slight effect of worsening glucose tolerance and a modest effect of increasing cases of new-onset diabetes,” the current research shows that “bempedoic acid appears to be free of these effects,” said Dr. Guyton, who discussed this drug in another symposium at the meeting where he also discussed how the agent will “fit” into prescribing patterns.
 

How do patients with diabetes, prediabetes fare?

“Current guidelines support aggressive LDL cholesterol lowering in patients with diabetes, given the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Leiter.

Bempedoic acid was approved as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy to treat adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) who require additional lowering of LDL cholesterol, although its effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined, the prescribing information states.

However, it has been unknown how bempedoic acid affects LDL cholesterol or hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia.

To examine this, the researchers pooled data from four phase 3 trials in 3623 patients with ASCVD or HeFH who had been randomized 2:1 to bempedoic acid 180 mg/day or placebo for 12 or 24 weeks (if they were statin intolerant) or 52 weeks (if they were also on statins).

In the pooled sample, about half the patients had prediabetes (52%), and the rest had diabetes (31%) or normoglycemia (17%). Overall, 75%-84% of patients had a history of ASCVD.

Mean LDL cholesterol levels were higher in patients with normoglycemia (119 mg/dL) or prediabetes (115 mg/dL) than in patients with diabetes (110 mg/dL).

The primary outcome was percent change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12.

In the two types of patients (all with ASCVD or HeFH) – those on statins and those with statin intolerance – LDL cholesterol at 12 weeks was significantly lower in patients who received bempedoic acid, compared with placebo, regardless of whether they had no diabetes, prediabetes, or diabetes (all P < .001).

Similarly, patients who received bempedoic acid also had significant reductions in total cholesterol, non–HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) at 12 weeks, compared with patients who received placebo (all P < .01).

The safety profile of bempedoic acid was similar to placebo and did not vary by glycemic status.

“Of course, with any lipid-lowering therapy, there’s lots of interest in changes in glycemic parameters,” said Dr. Leiter. “A1c did not increase. In fact, it was significantly lower in patients with prediabetes and diabetes on bempedoic acid versus placebo.”

In addition, “statin trials have shown small increases in body weight. We did not observe this,” he reported.
 

Where does bempedoic acid ‘fit?’

“Bempedoic acid will be a useful add-on to any patient who requires additional LDL cholesterol lowering,” according to Dr. Leiter. “It will typically be used as an add-on to statins, but will also be very useful in the statin-intolerant patient, especially when used in combination with ezetimib.”

The fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe (Nexlizet; Esperion), was also approved in the United States in February, just days after bempedoic acid as a solo agent was cleared for marketing.

“Bempedoic acid would not be chosen in preference to a statin, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor,” Dr. Guyton said. Rather, “its chief use will be in patients with statin intolerance and either FH or ASCVD when LDL-cholesterol is poorly controlled despite maximum tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.”

According to Dr. Guyton, “use of bempedoic acid should be undertaken only when provider-patient discussion acknowledges that it has not been shown to reduce cardiovascular events, although preliminary evidence from genetic analysis [Mendelian randomization study] suggests that it will,” as previously reported.

The CLEAR Outcomes cardiovascular outcomes trial of bempedoic acid completed enrollment in August 2019, involving 14,032 patients with hypercholesterolemia and high CVD risk according to a company statement.

The study was funded by Esperion. Dr. Leiter has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier, receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, and the Medicines Company, and being on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the abstract. Dr. Guyton has reported being a consultant for Amarin and receiving research support form Regeneron.

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

In an analysis of four phase 3 trials, the oral lipid-lowering drug bempedoic acid (Nexletol; Esperion) did not worsen glycemic control or increase the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

As previously reported, this first-in-class drug, which acts by inhibiting ATP-citrate lyase, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2020.

Lawrence A. Leiter MD, from the University of Toronto, delivered the findings of this latest analysis in an oral presentation at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

“The current study is important as it shows overall consistent efficacy and safety regardless of glycemic status and no increase in new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Leiter said in an interview.

There is interest in how lipid-lowering drugs might affect glycemia because “meta-analyses have shown about a 10% increased risk of new-onset diabetes in statin users, although the absolute increased risk is 1 extra case per 255 treated patients [in whom one would expect 5.4 cardiovascular events to be prevented by the statin],” he noted.

In a comment, John R. Guyton, MD, from Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed that the new study demonstrates that “patients with diabetes and prediabetes respond to bempedoic acid with LDL cholesterol lowering that is similar to that in patients with normal glucose tolerance.”

Although “statins have a slight effect of worsening glucose tolerance and a modest effect of increasing cases of new-onset diabetes,” the current research shows that “bempedoic acid appears to be free of these effects,” said Dr. Guyton, who discussed this drug in another symposium at the meeting where he also discussed how the agent will “fit” into prescribing patterns.
 

How do patients with diabetes, prediabetes fare?

“Current guidelines support aggressive LDL cholesterol lowering in patients with diabetes, given the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Leiter.

Bempedoic acid was approved as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy to treat adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) who require additional lowering of LDL cholesterol, although its effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined, the prescribing information states.

However, it has been unknown how bempedoic acid affects LDL cholesterol or hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia.

To examine this, the researchers pooled data from four phase 3 trials in 3623 patients with ASCVD or HeFH who had been randomized 2:1 to bempedoic acid 180 mg/day or placebo for 12 or 24 weeks (if they were statin intolerant) or 52 weeks (if they were also on statins).

In the pooled sample, about half the patients had prediabetes (52%), and the rest had diabetes (31%) or normoglycemia (17%). Overall, 75%-84% of patients had a history of ASCVD.

Mean LDL cholesterol levels were higher in patients with normoglycemia (119 mg/dL) or prediabetes (115 mg/dL) than in patients with diabetes (110 mg/dL).

The primary outcome was percent change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12.

In the two types of patients (all with ASCVD or HeFH) – those on statins and those with statin intolerance – LDL cholesterol at 12 weeks was significantly lower in patients who received bempedoic acid, compared with placebo, regardless of whether they had no diabetes, prediabetes, or diabetes (all P < .001).

Similarly, patients who received bempedoic acid also had significant reductions in total cholesterol, non–HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) at 12 weeks, compared with patients who received placebo (all P < .01).

The safety profile of bempedoic acid was similar to placebo and did not vary by glycemic status.

“Of course, with any lipid-lowering therapy, there’s lots of interest in changes in glycemic parameters,” said Dr. Leiter. “A1c did not increase. In fact, it was significantly lower in patients with prediabetes and diabetes on bempedoic acid versus placebo.”

In addition, “statin trials have shown small increases in body weight. We did not observe this,” he reported.
 

Where does bempedoic acid ‘fit?’

“Bempedoic acid will be a useful add-on to any patient who requires additional LDL cholesterol lowering,” according to Dr. Leiter. “It will typically be used as an add-on to statins, but will also be very useful in the statin-intolerant patient, especially when used in combination with ezetimib.”

The fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe (Nexlizet; Esperion), was also approved in the United States in February, just days after bempedoic acid as a solo agent was cleared for marketing.

“Bempedoic acid would not be chosen in preference to a statin, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor,” Dr. Guyton said. Rather, “its chief use will be in patients with statin intolerance and either FH or ASCVD when LDL-cholesterol is poorly controlled despite maximum tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.”

According to Dr. Guyton, “use of bempedoic acid should be undertaken only when provider-patient discussion acknowledges that it has not been shown to reduce cardiovascular events, although preliminary evidence from genetic analysis [Mendelian randomization study] suggests that it will,” as previously reported.

The CLEAR Outcomes cardiovascular outcomes trial of bempedoic acid completed enrollment in August 2019, involving 14,032 patients with hypercholesterolemia and high CVD risk according to a company statement.

The study was funded by Esperion. Dr. Leiter has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier, receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, and the Medicines Company, and being on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the abstract. Dr. Guyton has reported being a consultant for Amarin and receiving research support form Regeneron.

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

In an analysis of four phase 3 trials, the oral lipid-lowering drug bempedoic acid (Nexletol; Esperion) did not worsen glycemic control or increase the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

As previously reported, this first-in-class drug, which acts by inhibiting ATP-citrate lyase, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2020.

Lawrence A. Leiter MD, from the University of Toronto, delivered the findings of this latest analysis in an oral presentation at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

“The current study is important as it shows overall consistent efficacy and safety regardless of glycemic status and no increase in new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Leiter said in an interview.

There is interest in how lipid-lowering drugs might affect glycemia because “meta-analyses have shown about a 10% increased risk of new-onset diabetes in statin users, although the absolute increased risk is 1 extra case per 255 treated patients [in whom one would expect 5.4 cardiovascular events to be prevented by the statin],” he noted.

In a comment, John R. Guyton, MD, from Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed that the new study demonstrates that “patients with diabetes and prediabetes respond to bempedoic acid with LDL cholesterol lowering that is similar to that in patients with normal glucose tolerance.”

Although “statins have a slight effect of worsening glucose tolerance and a modest effect of increasing cases of new-onset diabetes,” the current research shows that “bempedoic acid appears to be free of these effects,” said Dr. Guyton, who discussed this drug in another symposium at the meeting where he also discussed how the agent will “fit” into prescribing patterns.
 

How do patients with diabetes, prediabetes fare?

“Current guidelines support aggressive LDL cholesterol lowering in patients with diabetes, given the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Leiter.

Bempedoic acid was approved as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy to treat adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) who require additional lowering of LDL cholesterol, although its effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined, the prescribing information states.

However, it has been unknown how bempedoic acid affects LDL cholesterol or hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia.

To examine this, the researchers pooled data from four phase 3 trials in 3623 patients with ASCVD or HeFH who had been randomized 2:1 to bempedoic acid 180 mg/day or placebo for 12 or 24 weeks (if they were statin intolerant) or 52 weeks (if they were also on statins).

In the pooled sample, about half the patients had prediabetes (52%), and the rest had diabetes (31%) or normoglycemia (17%). Overall, 75%-84% of patients had a history of ASCVD.

Mean LDL cholesterol levels were higher in patients with normoglycemia (119 mg/dL) or prediabetes (115 mg/dL) than in patients with diabetes (110 mg/dL).

The primary outcome was percent change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12.

In the two types of patients (all with ASCVD or HeFH) – those on statins and those with statin intolerance – LDL cholesterol at 12 weeks was significantly lower in patients who received bempedoic acid, compared with placebo, regardless of whether they had no diabetes, prediabetes, or diabetes (all P < .001).

Similarly, patients who received bempedoic acid also had significant reductions in total cholesterol, non–HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) at 12 weeks, compared with patients who received placebo (all P < .01).

The safety profile of bempedoic acid was similar to placebo and did not vary by glycemic status.

“Of course, with any lipid-lowering therapy, there’s lots of interest in changes in glycemic parameters,” said Dr. Leiter. “A1c did not increase. In fact, it was significantly lower in patients with prediabetes and diabetes on bempedoic acid versus placebo.”

In addition, “statin trials have shown small increases in body weight. We did not observe this,” he reported.
 

Where does bempedoic acid ‘fit?’

“Bempedoic acid will be a useful add-on to any patient who requires additional LDL cholesterol lowering,” according to Dr. Leiter. “It will typically be used as an add-on to statins, but will also be very useful in the statin-intolerant patient, especially when used in combination with ezetimib.”

The fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe (Nexlizet; Esperion), was also approved in the United States in February, just days after bempedoic acid as a solo agent was cleared for marketing.

“Bempedoic acid would not be chosen in preference to a statin, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor,” Dr. Guyton said. Rather, “its chief use will be in patients with statin intolerance and either FH or ASCVD when LDL-cholesterol is poorly controlled despite maximum tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.”

According to Dr. Guyton, “use of bempedoic acid should be undertaken only when provider-patient discussion acknowledges that it has not been shown to reduce cardiovascular events, although preliminary evidence from genetic analysis [Mendelian randomization study] suggests that it will,” as previously reported.

The CLEAR Outcomes cardiovascular outcomes trial of bempedoic acid completed enrollment in August 2019, involving 14,032 patients with hypercholesterolemia and high CVD risk according to a company statement.

The study was funded by Esperion. Dr. Leiter has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier, receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, and the Medicines Company, and being on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the abstract. Dr. Guyton has reported being a consultant for Amarin and receiving research support form Regeneron.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL (Lyumjev, Eli Lilly) for the treatment of adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The product is a novel formulation of insulin lispro developed to speed absorption of insulin into the bloodstream. It will be available in two strengths: U-100 (100 units/mL) and U-200 (200 units/mL). The Lyumjev U-200 prefilled pen contains twice as much insulin per 1 mL as standard (U-100) insulin.

Approval was based on data from two phase 3 randomized, active-controlled, treat-to-target studies comparing lispro-aabc with insulin lispro injection 100 units/mL (Humalog, Lilly) in people with type 1 diabetes (PRONTO-T1D) and type 2 diabetes (PRONTO-T2D).

In both studies, noninferiority in A1c reduction was demonstrated when the two insulins were dosed at mealtime, but lispro-aabc showed superior blood glucose reduction at 1-hour and 2-hours post-meal compared with lispro.

Lyumjev is approved only in the United States for use as part of a multiple daily injection regimen, not for use in insulin pumps. Lilly intends to submit for this latter indication later in 2020.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp).

Fiasp had a big head start: It was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017, for use in insulin pumps in October 2019, and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

However, in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association 79th Scientific Sessions in 2019, lispro-aabb demonstrated faster insulin absorption than lispro, insulin aspart (Novolog/Novorapid, Novo Nordisk), or Fiasp.

Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached at 13 minutes with lispro-aabb, compared with 19 minutes with faster aspart and 25-27 minutes with the two conventional insulins (P < .05 for lispro-aabb vs other insulins).  

Insulin lispro-aabc was approved in the European Union and Japan in March 2020.

Lilly is currently working to make Lyumjev available to adults with diabetes in the United States as quickly as possible and says it will be included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program, allowing anyone with commercial insurance and those without insurance to fill their monthly prescription of Lyumjev for $35.

The list price of Lyumjev will be the same as the list price for Humalog, it adds.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL (Lyumjev, Eli Lilly) for the treatment of adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The product is a novel formulation of insulin lispro developed to speed absorption of insulin into the bloodstream. It will be available in two strengths: U-100 (100 units/mL) and U-200 (200 units/mL). The Lyumjev U-200 prefilled pen contains twice as much insulin per 1 mL as standard (U-100) insulin.

Approval was based on data from two phase 3 randomized, active-controlled, treat-to-target studies comparing lispro-aabc with insulin lispro injection 100 units/mL (Humalog, Lilly) in people with type 1 diabetes (PRONTO-T1D) and type 2 diabetes (PRONTO-T2D).

In both studies, noninferiority in A1c reduction was demonstrated when the two insulins were dosed at mealtime, but lispro-aabc showed superior blood glucose reduction at 1-hour and 2-hours post-meal compared with lispro.

Lyumjev is approved only in the United States for use as part of a multiple daily injection regimen, not for use in insulin pumps. Lilly intends to submit for this latter indication later in 2020.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp).

Fiasp had a big head start: It was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017, for use in insulin pumps in October 2019, and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

However, in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association 79th Scientific Sessions in 2019, lispro-aabb demonstrated faster insulin absorption than lispro, insulin aspart (Novolog/Novorapid, Novo Nordisk), or Fiasp.

Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached at 13 minutes with lispro-aabb, compared with 19 minutes with faster aspart and 25-27 minutes with the two conventional insulins (P < .05 for lispro-aabb vs other insulins).  

Insulin lispro-aabc was approved in the European Union and Japan in March 2020.

Lilly is currently working to make Lyumjev available to adults with diabetes in the United States as quickly as possible and says it will be included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program, allowing anyone with commercial insurance and those without insurance to fill their monthly prescription of Lyumjev for $35.

The list price of Lyumjev will be the same as the list price for Humalog, it adds.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL (Lyumjev, Eli Lilly) for the treatment of adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The product is a novel formulation of insulin lispro developed to speed absorption of insulin into the bloodstream. It will be available in two strengths: U-100 (100 units/mL) and U-200 (200 units/mL). The Lyumjev U-200 prefilled pen contains twice as much insulin per 1 mL as standard (U-100) insulin.

Approval was based on data from two phase 3 randomized, active-controlled, treat-to-target studies comparing lispro-aabc with insulin lispro injection 100 units/mL (Humalog, Lilly) in people with type 1 diabetes (PRONTO-T1D) and type 2 diabetes (PRONTO-T2D).

In both studies, noninferiority in A1c reduction was demonstrated when the two insulins were dosed at mealtime, but lispro-aabc showed superior blood glucose reduction at 1-hour and 2-hours post-meal compared with lispro.

Lyumjev is approved only in the United States for use as part of a multiple daily injection regimen, not for use in insulin pumps. Lilly intends to submit for this latter indication later in 2020.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp).

Fiasp had a big head start: It was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017, for use in insulin pumps in October 2019, and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

However, in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association 79th Scientific Sessions in 2019, lispro-aabb demonstrated faster insulin absorption than lispro, insulin aspart (Novolog/Novorapid, Novo Nordisk), or Fiasp.

Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached at 13 minutes with lispro-aabb, compared with 19 minutes with faster aspart and 25-27 minutes with the two conventional insulins (P < .05 for lispro-aabb vs other insulins).  

Insulin lispro-aabc was approved in the European Union and Japan in March 2020.

Lilly is currently working to make Lyumjev available to adults with diabetes in the United States as quickly as possible and says it will be included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program, allowing anyone with commercial insurance and those without insurance to fill their monthly prescription of Lyumjev for $35.

The list price of Lyumjev will be the same as the list price for Humalog, it adds.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.