Clinical Endocrinology News

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity during adolescence is associated with increased midlife cancer risk, according to findings from a large population-based cohort of Israeli teens examined between 1967 and 2010.

The association, which was stronger in individuals in the later period of the cohort than in those in the earlier years, suggests that the burden of obesity-related cancers might increase over time, given the increasing prevalence of adolescent obesity, wrote Ariel Furer, MD, of Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Ramat Gan, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet.

Obesity is a known causal factor for several types of cancer, but most studies have looked at middle-age or older individuals and had relatively short follow-up, and period effects are rarely assessed, the investigators said, noting that “the attributable burden of obesity-related cancer was previously calculated with an unverified assumption that the association remained unchanged over time.

“In contrast to this paucity of knowledge, the prevalence of youth obesity – particularly severe obesity – has increased worldwide, which parallels the rise in youth cancer incidence,” they wrote.

To address this paucity of data, the researchers reviewed medical and sociodemographic data for adolescents who were assessed at age 17 years for medical eligibility for mandatory military service, and linked that information with data from the National Cancer Registry to create a unified file. The primary study outcome was any cancer diagnosis between Jan. 1, 1967, and Dec. 31, 2012, and a secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality through Dec. 31, 2017, among those who developed cancer.

Among nearly 2.3 million participating adolescents who were evaluated for associations between body mass index at age 17 years and later cancer incidence, 1,370,020 were men with more than 29.5 million person-years of follow-up, and 928,110 were women with more than 18 million person-years of follow-up. The numbers of incident cancer cases in the men and women were 26,353 and 29,488, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 43.2 and 40.0 years, respectively, the investigators reported (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X).

Adolescent obesity in men was significantly associated with midlife cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 1.26), but in women, no association was seen due to the previously reported inverse associations between obesity and cervical and breast cancers, they said.

However, when those cancers were excluded for women, the adjusted hazard ratio was similar to that for men (HR, 1.27).

Cancer incidence in both men and women increased gradually across BMI percentiles, and for both sexes, overweight BMI was associated with an increased cancer risk after 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.14 for men, 1.22 for women after exclusion of cervical and breast cancer). Therefore, in some cases the increased cancer risk in those who were overweight as teens was evident before age 30 years, the authors noted.

Further, BMI was positively associated with greater mortality risk. For men, 5-year survival rates were 75.2% in those with adolescent BMI in the 5th-49th percentile, compared with 72.2% in those with BMI in the obesity range (95th percentile or greater), and the corresponding rates in women were 89.3% and 83.1% (HR, 1.33 and 1.89, respectively).

Of note, the investigators identified a period effect. That is, after stratification by enrollment period/cancer recording period (1967-1981/1982-1996 vs. 1982-1996/1997-2011), a stronger association was noted in individuals who entered the study during the later period, compared with those who entered in the early period (HR, 1.36 vs. 1.13; adjusted HR, 1.11 vs. 1.07 per 5 kg/m²). Possible mechanisms for this finding include environmental and nutritional factors, increased use of medical services, and changes in early cancer screening techniques, but further study is needed to verify the trend and “refine the exact nature of carcinogenic elements, compared with earlier periods,” they said.

Also of note, some cancers that were not associated with BMI in the early period, including stomach cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and colorectal and oral cavity cancers, became significantly associated with BMI in the late period.

“The projected population attributable risk percentage, using 2017 prevalence data of high BMI, was 5.1% for any cancer in men and 5.7% for cancers other than breast and cervical in women,” the researchers wrote, noting that this “is probably an underestimation, given the accentuation of the BMI-cancer association and the rapid increase in adolescent obesity prevalence within the past decade in Israel and worldwide.”

In an accompanying editorial, the journal editors noted that the findings by Dr. Furer and colleagues highlight the need to tackle obesity early in life and the need for obesity prevention strategies to reduce cancer incidence and mortality for those cancers that can be prevented by lifestyle modifications. They added, however, that care would be needed to avoid stigmatizing those with obesity, as obesity itself is a “multifactorial condition driven by social injustice and health inequalities” that most often affect those who are least able to implement lifestyle change (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.106/S2213-8587(20)30031-0).

They also emphasized that the links between obesity and cancer, like those between obesity and other diseases such as diabetes, underscore the fact that noncommunicable diseases do not exist in isolation, and that tackling them requires bold action, a consolidated approach, and elimination of the environmental and social factors driving the epidemic.

The study was limited by a number of factors, including the lack of data on lifestyle factors, underrepresentation of some ethnicities, and lack of data on BMI and medical comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, strengths of the study include the systematic data collection, narrow range of age at study entry, strict control of coexisting conditions, and high statistical power, which strengthen the generalizability of the results, the investigators said, concluding, therefore, that “[c]urrent trends of rising BMI among adolescents could constitute an important intervention target for cancer prevention.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Furer A et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X.

Obesity during adolescence is associated with increased midlife cancer risk, according to findings from a large population-based cohort of Israeli teens examined between 1967 and 2010.

The association, which was stronger in individuals in the later period of the cohort than in those in the earlier years, suggests that the burden of obesity-related cancers might increase over time, given the increasing prevalence of adolescent obesity, wrote Ariel Furer, MD, of Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Ramat Gan, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet.

Obesity is a known causal factor for several types of cancer, but most studies have looked at middle-age or older individuals and had relatively short follow-up, and period effects are rarely assessed, the investigators said, noting that “the attributable burden of obesity-related cancer was previously calculated with an unverified assumption that the association remained unchanged over time.

“In contrast to this paucity of knowledge, the prevalence of youth obesity – particularly severe obesity – has increased worldwide, which parallels the rise in youth cancer incidence,” they wrote.

To address this paucity of data, the researchers reviewed medical and sociodemographic data for adolescents who were assessed at age 17 years for medical eligibility for mandatory military service, and linked that information with data from the National Cancer Registry to create a unified file. The primary study outcome was any cancer diagnosis between Jan. 1, 1967, and Dec. 31, 2012, and a secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality through Dec. 31, 2017, among those who developed cancer.

Among nearly 2.3 million participating adolescents who were evaluated for associations between body mass index at age 17 years and later cancer incidence, 1,370,020 were men with more than 29.5 million person-years of follow-up, and 928,110 were women with more than 18 million person-years of follow-up. The numbers of incident cancer cases in the men and women were 26,353 and 29,488, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 43.2 and 40.0 years, respectively, the investigators reported (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X).

Adolescent obesity in men was significantly associated with midlife cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 1.26), but in women, no association was seen due to the previously reported inverse associations between obesity and cervical and breast cancers, they said.

However, when those cancers were excluded for women, the adjusted hazard ratio was similar to that for men (HR, 1.27).

Cancer incidence in both men and women increased gradually across BMI percentiles, and for both sexes, overweight BMI was associated with an increased cancer risk after 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.14 for men, 1.22 for women after exclusion of cervical and breast cancer). Therefore, in some cases the increased cancer risk in those who were overweight as teens was evident before age 30 years, the authors noted.

Further, BMI was positively associated with greater mortality risk. For men, 5-year survival rates were 75.2% in those with adolescent BMI in the 5th-49th percentile, compared with 72.2% in those with BMI in the obesity range (95th percentile or greater), and the corresponding rates in women were 89.3% and 83.1% (HR, 1.33 and 1.89, respectively).

Of note, the investigators identified a period effect. That is, after stratification by enrollment period/cancer recording period (1967-1981/1982-1996 vs. 1982-1996/1997-2011), a stronger association was noted in individuals who entered the study during the later period, compared with those who entered in the early period (HR, 1.36 vs. 1.13; adjusted HR, 1.11 vs. 1.07 per 5 kg/m²). Possible mechanisms for this finding include environmental and nutritional factors, increased use of medical services, and changes in early cancer screening techniques, but further study is needed to verify the trend and “refine the exact nature of carcinogenic elements, compared with earlier periods,” they said.

Also of note, some cancers that were not associated with BMI in the early period, including stomach cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and colorectal and oral cavity cancers, became significantly associated with BMI in the late period.

“The projected population attributable risk percentage, using 2017 prevalence data of high BMI, was 5.1% for any cancer in men and 5.7% for cancers other than breast and cervical in women,” the researchers wrote, noting that this “is probably an underestimation, given the accentuation of the BMI-cancer association and the rapid increase in adolescent obesity prevalence within the past decade in Israel and worldwide.”

In an accompanying editorial, the journal editors noted that the findings by Dr. Furer and colleagues highlight the need to tackle obesity early in life and the need for obesity prevention strategies to reduce cancer incidence and mortality for those cancers that can be prevented by lifestyle modifications. They added, however, that care would be needed to avoid stigmatizing those with obesity, as obesity itself is a “multifactorial condition driven by social injustice and health inequalities” that most often affect those who are least able to implement lifestyle change (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.106/S2213-8587(20)30031-0).

They also emphasized that the links between obesity and cancer, like those between obesity and other diseases such as diabetes, underscore the fact that noncommunicable diseases do not exist in isolation, and that tackling them requires bold action, a consolidated approach, and elimination of the environmental and social factors driving the epidemic.

The study was limited by a number of factors, including the lack of data on lifestyle factors, underrepresentation of some ethnicities, and lack of data on BMI and medical comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, strengths of the study include the systematic data collection, narrow range of age at study entry, strict control of coexisting conditions, and high statistical power, which strengthen the generalizability of the results, the investigators said, concluding, therefore, that “[c]urrent trends of rising BMI among adolescents could constitute an important intervention target for cancer prevention.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Furer A et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X.

Obesity during adolescence is associated with increased midlife cancer risk, according to findings from a large population-based cohort of Israeli teens examined between 1967 and 2010.

The association, which was stronger in individuals in the later period of the cohort than in those in the earlier years, suggests that the burden of obesity-related cancers might increase over time, given the increasing prevalence of adolescent obesity, wrote Ariel Furer, MD, of Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Ramat Gan, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet.

Obesity is a known causal factor for several types of cancer, but most studies have looked at middle-age or older individuals and had relatively short follow-up, and period effects are rarely assessed, the investigators said, noting that “the attributable burden of obesity-related cancer was previously calculated with an unverified assumption that the association remained unchanged over time.

“In contrast to this paucity of knowledge, the prevalence of youth obesity – particularly severe obesity – has increased worldwide, which parallels the rise in youth cancer incidence,” they wrote.

To address this paucity of data, the researchers reviewed medical and sociodemographic data for adolescents who were assessed at age 17 years for medical eligibility for mandatory military service, and linked that information with data from the National Cancer Registry to create a unified file. The primary study outcome was any cancer diagnosis between Jan. 1, 1967, and Dec. 31, 2012, and a secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality through Dec. 31, 2017, among those who developed cancer.

Among nearly 2.3 million participating adolescents who were evaluated for associations between body mass index at age 17 years and later cancer incidence, 1,370,020 were men with more than 29.5 million person-years of follow-up, and 928,110 were women with more than 18 million person-years of follow-up. The numbers of incident cancer cases in the men and women were 26,353 and 29,488, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 43.2 and 40.0 years, respectively, the investigators reported (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X).

Adolescent obesity in men was significantly associated with midlife cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 1.26), but in women, no association was seen due to the previously reported inverse associations between obesity and cervical and breast cancers, they said.

However, when those cancers were excluded for women, the adjusted hazard ratio was similar to that for men (HR, 1.27).

Cancer incidence in both men and women increased gradually across BMI percentiles, and for both sexes, overweight BMI was associated with an increased cancer risk after 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.14 for men, 1.22 for women after exclusion of cervical and breast cancer). Therefore, in some cases the increased cancer risk in those who were overweight as teens was evident before age 30 years, the authors noted.

Further, BMI was positively associated with greater mortality risk. For men, 5-year survival rates were 75.2% in those with adolescent BMI in the 5th-49th percentile, compared with 72.2% in those with BMI in the obesity range (95th percentile or greater), and the corresponding rates in women were 89.3% and 83.1% (HR, 1.33 and 1.89, respectively).

Of note, the investigators identified a period effect. That is, after stratification by enrollment period/cancer recording period (1967-1981/1982-1996 vs. 1982-1996/1997-2011), a stronger association was noted in individuals who entered the study during the later period, compared with those who entered in the early period (HR, 1.36 vs. 1.13; adjusted HR, 1.11 vs. 1.07 per 5 kg/m²). Possible mechanisms for this finding include environmental and nutritional factors, increased use of medical services, and changes in early cancer screening techniques, but further study is needed to verify the trend and “refine the exact nature of carcinogenic elements, compared with earlier periods,” they said.

Also of note, some cancers that were not associated with BMI in the early period, including stomach cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and colorectal and oral cavity cancers, became significantly associated with BMI in the late period.

“The projected population attributable risk percentage, using 2017 prevalence data of high BMI, was 5.1% for any cancer in men and 5.7% for cancers other than breast and cervical in women,” the researchers wrote, noting that this “is probably an underestimation, given the accentuation of the BMI-cancer association and the rapid increase in adolescent obesity prevalence within the past decade in Israel and worldwide.”

In an accompanying editorial, the journal editors noted that the findings by Dr. Furer and colleagues highlight the need to tackle obesity early in life and the need for obesity prevention strategies to reduce cancer incidence and mortality for those cancers that can be prevented by lifestyle modifications. They added, however, that care would be needed to avoid stigmatizing those with obesity, as obesity itself is a “multifactorial condition driven by social injustice and health inequalities” that most often affect those who are least able to implement lifestyle change (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.106/S2213-8587(20)30031-0).

They also emphasized that the links between obesity and cancer, like those between obesity and other diseases such as diabetes, underscore the fact that noncommunicable diseases do not exist in isolation, and that tackling them requires bold action, a consolidated approach, and elimination of the environmental and social factors driving the epidemic.

The study was limited by a number of factors, including the lack of data on lifestyle factors, underrepresentation of some ethnicities, and lack of data on BMI and medical comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, strengths of the study include the systematic data collection, narrow range of age at study entry, strict control of coexisting conditions, and high statistical power, which strengthen the generalizability of the results, the investigators said, concluding, therefore, that “[c]urrent trends of rising BMI among adolescents could constitute an important intervention target for cancer prevention.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Furer A et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X.

LOS ANGELES – Evidence continues to mount that diabetic retinopathy predicts elevated risk for stroke.

In a new study with nearly 3,000 people, those with diabetic retinopathy were 60% more likely than others with diabetes to develop an incident stroke over time. Investigators also found that addressing glucose, lipids, and blood pressure levels did not mitigate this risk in this secondary analysis of the ACCORD Eye Study.

“We are not surprised with the finding that diabetic retinopathy increases the risk of stroke — as diabetic retinopathy is common microvascular disease that is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Ka-Ho Wong, BS, MBA, said in an interview.

However, “we were surprised that none of the trial interventions mitigated this risk, in particular the intensive blood pressure reduction, because hypertension is the most important cause of microvascular disease,” he said. Mr. Wong is clinical research coordinator and lab manager of the de Havenon Lab at the University of Utah Health Hospitals and Clinics in Salt Lake City.

The study findings were released Feb. 12, 2020, in advance of formal presentation at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Common predictor of vascular disease

Diabetic retinopathy is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting up to 50% of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In addition, previous research suggests that macrovascular diabetes complications, including stroke, could share a common or synergistic pathway.

This small vessel damage in the eye also has been linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiac events, including heart failure, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

To find out more, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed 2,828 participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study. They compared the stroke risk between 874 people with diabetic retinopathy and another 1,954 diabetics without this complication. The average age was 62 years and 62% were men.

Diabetic neuropathy at baseline was diagnosed using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale using seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs.

A total of 117 participants experienced a stroke during a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.

The investigators found that diabetic retinopathy was more common among patients who had a stroke (41%) versus 31% of those without a stroke (P = .016). The link between diabetic retinopathy and stroke remained in an analysis adjusted for multiple factors, including baseline age, gender, race, total cholesterol, A_1c, smoking, and more. Risk remained elevated, with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.32; P = .015).

Regarding the potential for modifying this risk, the association was unaffected among participants randomly assigned to the ACCORD glucose intervention (P = .305), lipid intervention (P = .546), or blood pressure intervention (P = .422).

The study was a secondary analysis, so information on stroke type and location were unavailable.
 

The big picture

“Diabetic retinopathy is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which suggests that the microvascular pathology inherent to diabetic retinopathy has larger cardiovascular implications,” the researchers noted.

Despite these findings, the researchers suggest that patients with diabetic retinopathy receive aggressive medical management to try to reduce their stroke risk.

“It’s important for everyone with diabetes to maintain good blood glucose control, and those with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all the stroke prevention guidelines that are established by the American Stroke Association,” said Mr. Wong.

“Patients with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all stroke prevention guidelines established by the [American Heart Association],” he added.

Mr. Wong and colleagues would like to expand on these findings. Pending grant application and funding support, they propose conducting a prospective, observational trial in stroke patients with baseline diabetic retinopathy. One aim would be to identify the most common mechanisms leading to stroke in this population, “which would have important implications for prevention efforts,” he said.
 

Consistent Findings

“The results of the study showing that having diabetic retinopathy is also associated with an increase in stroke really isn’t surprising. There have been other studies, population-based studies, done in the past, that have found a similar relationship,” Larry B. Goldstein, MD, said in a video commentary on the findings.

“The results are actually quite consistent with several other studies that have evaluated the same relationship,” added Dr. Goldstein, who is chair of the department of neurology and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, University of Kentucky HealthCare, Lexington.

Mr. Wong and Dr. Goldstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funded the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Evidence continues to mount that diabetic retinopathy predicts elevated risk for stroke.

In a new study with nearly 3,000 people, those with diabetic retinopathy were 60% more likely than others with diabetes to develop an incident stroke over time. Investigators also found that addressing glucose, lipids, and blood pressure levels did not mitigate this risk in this secondary analysis of the ACCORD Eye Study.

“We are not surprised with the finding that diabetic retinopathy increases the risk of stroke — as diabetic retinopathy is common microvascular disease that is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Ka-Ho Wong, BS, MBA, said in an interview.

However, “we were surprised that none of the trial interventions mitigated this risk, in particular the intensive blood pressure reduction, because hypertension is the most important cause of microvascular disease,” he said. Mr. Wong is clinical research coordinator and lab manager of the de Havenon Lab at the University of Utah Health Hospitals and Clinics in Salt Lake City.

The study findings were released Feb. 12, 2020, in advance of formal presentation at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Common predictor of vascular disease

Diabetic retinopathy is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting up to 50% of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In addition, previous research suggests that macrovascular diabetes complications, including stroke, could share a common or synergistic pathway.

This small vessel damage in the eye also has been linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiac events, including heart failure, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

To find out more, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed 2,828 participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study. They compared the stroke risk between 874 people with diabetic retinopathy and another 1,954 diabetics without this complication. The average age was 62 years and 62% were men.

Diabetic neuropathy at baseline was diagnosed using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale using seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs.

A total of 117 participants experienced a stroke during a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.

The investigators found that diabetic retinopathy was more common among patients who had a stroke (41%) versus 31% of those without a stroke (P = .016). The link between diabetic retinopathy and stroke remained in an analysis adjusted for multiple factors, including baseline age, gender, race, total cholesterol, A_1c, smoking, and more. Risk remained elevated, with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.32; P = .015).

Regarding the potential for modifying this risk, the association was unaffected among participants randomly assigned to the ACCORD glucose intervention (P = .305), lipid intervention (P = .546), or blood pressure intervention (P = .422).

The study was a secondary analysis, so information on stroke type and location were unavailable.
 

The big picture

“Diabetic retinopathy is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which suggests that the microvascular pathology inherent to diabetic retinopathy has larger cardiovascular implications,” the researchers noted.

Despite these findings, the researchers suggest that patients with diabetic retinopathy receive aggressive medical management to try to reduce their stroke risk.

“It’s important for everyone with diabetes to maintain good blood glucose control, and those with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all the stroke prevention guidelines that are established by the American Stroke Association,” said Mr. Wong.

“Patients with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all stroke prevention guidelines established by the [American Heart Association],” he added.

Mr. Wong and colleagues would like to expand on these findings. Pending grant application and funding support, they propose conducting a prospective, observational trial in stroke patients with baseline diabetic retinopathy. One aim would be to identify the most common mechanisms leading to stroke in this population, “which would have important implications for prevention efforts,” he said.
 

Consistent Findings

“The results of the study showing that having diabetic retinopathy is also associated with an increase in stroke really isn’t surprising. There have been other studies, population-based studies, done in the past, that have found a similar relationship,” Larry B. Goldstein, MD, said in a video commentary on the findings.

“The results are actually quite consistent with several other studies that have evaluated the same relationship,” added Dr. Goldstein, who is chair of the department of neurology and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, University of Kentucky HealthCare, Lexington.

Mr. Wong and Dr. Goldstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funded the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Evidence continues to mount that diabetic retinopathy predicts elevated risk for stroke.

In a new study with nearly 3,000 people, those with diabetic retinopathy were 60% more likely than others with diabetes to develop an incident stroke over time. Investigators also found that addressing glucose, lipids, and blood pressure levels did not mitigate this risk in this secondary analysis of the ACCORD Eye Study.

“We are not surprised with the finding that diabetic retinopathy increases the risk of stroke — as diabetic retinopathy is common microvascular disease that is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Ka-Ho Wong, BS, MBA, said in an interview.

However, “we were surprised that none of the trial interventions mitigated this risk, in particular the intensive blood pressure reduction, because hypertension is the most important cause of microvascular disease,” he said. Mr. Wong is clinical research coordinator and lab manager of the de Havenon Lab at the University of Utah Health Hospitals and Clinics in Salt Lake City.

The study findings were released Feb. 12, 2020, in advance of formal presentation at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Common predictor of vascular disease

Diabetic retinopathy is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting up to 50% of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In addition, previous research suggests that macrovascular diabetes complications, including stroke, could share a common or synergistic pathway.

This small vessel damage in the eye also has been linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiac events, including heart failure, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

To find out more, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed 2,828 participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study. They compared the stroke risk between 874 people with diabetic retinopathy and another 1,954 diabetics without this complication. The average age was 62 years and 62% were men.

Diabetic neuropathy at baseline was diagnosed using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale using seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs.

A total of 117 participants experienced a stroke during a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.

The investigators found that diabetic retinopathy was more common among patients who had a stroke (41%) versus 31% of those without a stroke (P = .016). The link between diabetic retinopathy and stroke remained in an analysis adjusted for multiple factors, including baseline age, gender, race, total cholesterol, A_1c, smoking, and more. Risk remained elevated, with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.32; P = .015).

Regarding the potential for modifying this risk, the association was unaffected among participants randomly assigned to the ACCORD glucose intervention (P = .305), lipid intervention (P = .546), or blood pressure intervention (P = .422).

The study was a secondary analysis, so information on stroke type and location were unavailable.
 

The big picture

“Diabetic retinopathy is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which suggests that the microvascular pathology inherent to diabetic retinopathy has larger cardiovascular implications,” the researchers noted.

Despite these findings, the researchers suggest that patients with diabetic retinopathy receive aggressive medical management to try to reduce their stroke risk.

“It’s important for everyone with diabetes to maintain good blood glucose control, and those with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all the stroke prevention guidelines that are established by the American Stroke Association,” said Mr. Wong.

“Patients with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all stroke prevention guidelines established by the [American Heart Association],” he added.

Mr. Wong and colleagues would like to expand on these findings. Pending grant application and funding support, they propose conducting a prospective, observational trial in stroke patients with baseline diabetic retinopathy. One aim would be to identify the most common mechanisms leading to stroke in this population, “which would have important implications for prevention efforts,” he said.
 

Consistent Findings

“The results of the study showing that having diabetic retinopathy is also associated with an increase in stroke really isn’t surprising. There have been other studies, population-based studies, done in the past, that have found a similar relationship,” Larry B. Goldstein, MD, said in a video commentary on the findings.

“The results are actually quite consistent with several other studies that have evaluated the same relationship,” added Dr. Goldstein, who is chair of the department of neurology and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, University of Kentucky HealthCare, Lexington.

Mr. Wong and Dr. Goldstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funded the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Alcohol use is associated with hepatic steatosis, even after exclusion of heavy drinkers. Binge drinking was associated with a particularly high risk. The results are drawn from a retrospective analysis of the Framingham Heart Study and indicate a possible connection between alcohol use and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). If confirmed prospectively, the results suggest that alcohol use could be a target for prevention and treatment of presumed NAFLD.

The study was led by Michelle Long, MD, of Boston University, and was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Previous studies have produced mixed results with respect to alcohol consumption and NAFLD, with some reporting increased risk with alcohol consumption, and some a beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption. Most such studies focused on average daily or weekly alcohol intake, without examining individual differences in alcohol use behavior.

The current work included 2,475 participants from the Offspring and Third Generation Cohorts of the multidetector CT (MDCT) substudy of the Framingham Heart Study. The researchers excluded heavy drinkers, defined as those who had more than 21 drinks (men) or 14 drinks (women) per week.

Of the sample, 17.3% had hepatic steatosis as measured by MDCT. The risk of hepatic steatosis increased from 15.3% to 54.3% along increasing categories of alcohol use.

With each standard deviation increase in the number of alcohol drinks per week, the risk of hepatic steatosis increased by 15% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29). Of subjects with presumed NAFLD, 25.4% were binge drinkers, defined as four or more drinks per day in women and five or more in men.

A pattern of risky weekly drinking – defined as 8 or more drinks for women or 15 or more for men – was associated with a 45% increase in odds of hepatic steatosis (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

An analysis of only current drinkers showed stronger associations between hepatic steatosis and the number of alcoholic drinks per week, risky weekly drinking, and maximum number of drinks in 24 hours.

When the researchers broke down the analysis by beer, wine, or spirit drinkers, they only found a statistically significant association between alcohol consumption and hepatic steatosis in beer drinkers.

The study authors received funding from a range of nonindustry sources. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Long M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.022

Alcohol use is associated with hepatic steatosis, even after exclusion of heavy drinkers. Binge drinking was associated with a particularly high risk. The results are drawn from a retrospective analysis of the Framingham Heart Study and indicate a possible connection between alcohol use and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). If confirmed prospectively, the results suggest that alcohol use could be a target for prevention and treatment of presumed NAFLD.

The study was led by Michelle Long, MD, of Boston University, and was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Previous studies have produced mixed results with respect to alcohol consumption and NAFLD, with some reporting increased risk with alcohol consumption, and some a beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption. Most such studies focused on average daily or weekly alcohol intake, without examining individual differences in alcohol use behavior.

The current work included 2,475 participants from the Offspring and Third Generation Cohorts of the multidetector CT (MDCT) substudy of the Framingham Heart Study. The researchers excluded heavy drinkers, defined as those who had more than 21 drinks (men) or 14 drinks (women) per week.

Of the sample, 17.3% had hepatic steatosis as measured by MDCT. The risk of hepatic steatosis increased from 15.3% to 54.3% along increasing categories of alcohol use.

With each standard deviation increase in the number of alcohol drinks per week, the risk of hepatic steatosis increased by 15% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29). Of subjects with presumed NAFLD, 25.4% were binge drinkers, defined as four or more drinks per day in women and five or more in men.

A pattern of risky weekly drinking – defined as 8 or more drinks for women or 15 or more for men – was associated with a 45% increase in odds of hepatic steatosis (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

An analysis of only current drinkers showed stronger associations between hepatic steatosis and the number of alcoholic drinks per week, risky weekly drinking, and maximum number of drinks in 24 hours.

When the researchers broke down the analysis by beer, wine, or spirit drinkers, they only found a statistically significant association between alcohol consumption and hepatic steatosis in beer drinkers.

The study authors received funding from a range of nonindustry sources. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Long M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.022

Alcohol use is associated with hepatic steatosis, even after exclusion of heavy drinkers. Binge drinking was associated with a particularly high risk. The results are drawn from a retrospective analysis of the Framingham Heart Study and indicate a possible connection between alcohol use and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). If confirmed prospectively, the results suggest that alcohol use could be a target for prevention and treatment of presumed NAFLD.

The study was led by Michelle Long, MD, of Boston University, and was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Previous studies have produced mixed results with respect to alcohol consumption and NAFLD, with some reporting increased risk with alcohol consumption, and some a beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption. Most such studies focused on average daily or weekly alcohol intake, without examining individual differences in alcohol use behavior.

The current work included 2,475 participants from the Offspring and Third Generation Cohorts of the multidetector CT (MDCT) substudy of the Framingham Heart Study. The researchers excluded heavy drinkers, defined as those who had more than 21 drinks (men) or 14 drinks (women) per week.

Of the sample, 17.3% had hepatic steatosis as measured by MDCT. The risk of hepatic steatosis increased from 15.3% to 54.3% along increasing categories of alcohol use.

With each standard deviation increase in the number of alcohol drinks per week, the risk of hepatic steatosis increased by 15% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29). Of subjects with presumed NAFLD, 25.4% were binge drinkers, defined as four or more drinks per day in women and five or more in men.

A pattern of risky weekly drinking – defined as 8 or more drinks for women or 15 or more for men – was associated with a 45% increase in odds of hepatic steatosis (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

An analysis of only current drinkers showed stronger associations between hepatic steatosis and the number of alcoholic drinks per week, risky weekly drinking, and maximum number of drinks in 24 hours.

When the researchers broke down the analysis by beer, wine, or spirit drinkers, they only found a statistically significant association between alcohol consumption and hepatic steatosis in beer drinkers.

The study authors received funding from a range of nonindustry sources. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Long M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.022

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Private equity firms are increasingly acquiring physician practices across a range of specialties, a recent analysis shows.

Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.

Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.

Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).

Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.

Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.

“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.

Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.

“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”

Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.

Private equity firms are increasingly acquiring physician practices across a range of specialties, a recent analysis shows.

Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.

Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.

Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).

Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.

Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.

“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.

Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.

“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”

Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.

Private equity firms are increasingly acquiring physician practices across a range of specialties, a recent analysis shows.

Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.

Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.

Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).

Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.

Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.

“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.

Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.

“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”

Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.

Only 23% of endocrinologists are happy at work, and just 49% overall are happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Endocrinologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020.

The report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, found that 31% of endocrinologists are burned out, 2% are depressed, and 16% are both depressed and burned out. Among them, 71% report having too many bureaucratic tasks as the biggest contributor, followed by insufficient reimbursement/compensation at 46% and increasing computerization of tasks (including EHR) at 34%.

The top way endocrinologists cope is by talking with family and close friends (42%), with almost equal amounts coping by either eating junk food or exercising (39% and 37%, respectively). Regarding professional help, 60% said they would not and have not previously sought professional help, while 12% said they were currently seeking professional help. Although 40% said they would engage a workplace program, 31% said they would not.

Among the reasons they gave for not seeking professional help, 45% felt they were too busy, 40% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, and 36% said they could handle it without help from professionals.

A slideshow of the full report can be found on Medscape.com.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Only 23% of endocrinologists are happy at work, and just 49% overall are happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Endocrinologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020.

The report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, found that 31% of endocrinologists are burned out, 2% are depressed, and 16% are both depressed and burned out. Among them, 71% report having too many bureaucratic tasks as the biggest contributor, followed by insufficient reimbursement/compensation at 46% and increasing computerization of tasks (including EHR) at 34%.

The top way endocrinologists cope is by talking with family and close friends (42%), with almost equal amounts coping by either eating junk food or exercising (39% and 37%, respectively). Regarding professional help, 60% said they would not and have not previously sought professional help, while 12% said they were currently seeking professional help. Although 40% said they would engage a workplace program, 31% said they would not.

Among the reasons they gave for not seeking professional help, 45% felt they were too busy, 40% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, and 36% said they could handle it without help from professionals.

A slideshow of the full report can be found on Medscape.com.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Only 23% of endocrinologists are happy at work, and just 49% overall are happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Endocrinologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020.

The report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, found that 31% of endocrinologists are burned out, 2% are depressed, and 16% are both depressed and burned out. Among them, 71% report having too many bureaucratic tasks as the biggest contributor, followed by insufficient reimbursement/compensation at 46% and increasing computerization of tasks (including EHR) at 34%.

The top way endocrinologists cope is by talking with family and close friends (42%), with almost equal amounts coping by either eating junk food or exercising (39% and 37%, respectively). Regarding professional help, 60% said they would not and have not previously sought professional help, while 12% said they were currently seeking professional help. Although 40% said they would engage a workplace program, 31% said they would not.

Among the reasons they gave for not seeking professional help, 45% felt they were too busy, 40% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, and 36% said they could handle it without help from professionals.

A slideshow of the full report can be found on Medscape.com.

cpalmer@mdedge.com