Cardiology

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).

“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
 

DGIM Educates Patients

What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.

When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.

“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.

“In general, the general practitioner should always be the first point of contact. They know their patients best and have the most background information,” explained Dr. Schütz. A trusting relationship is crucial for correctly assessing an unclear medical situation. “Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
 

What Are Emergencies?

In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:

• Chest pain
• Circulatory disorder
• Disorders of consciousness
• Breathing difficulties
• Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
• Severe bleeding
• Allergic shock

“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.

Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.

Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.

“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
 

Four of 10 Cases

The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.

In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.

The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.

The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).

According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
 

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

WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).

“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
 

DGIM Educates Patients

What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.

When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.

“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.

“In general, the general practitioner should always be the first point of contact. They know their patients best and have the most background information,” explained Dr. Schütz. A trusting relationship is crucial for correctly assessing an unclear medical situation. “Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
 

What Are Emergencies?

In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:

• Chest pain
• Circulatory disorder
• Disorders of consciousness
• Breathing difficulties
• Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
• Severe bleeding
• Allergic shock

“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.

Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.

Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.

“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
 

Four of 10 Cases

The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.

In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.

The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.

The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).

According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
 

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

WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).

“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
 

DGIM Educates Patients

What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.

When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.

“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.

“In general, the general practitioner should always be the first point of contact. They know their patients best and have the most background information,” explained Dr. Schütz. A trusting relationship is crucial for correctly assessing an unclear medical situation. “Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
 

What Are Emergencies?

In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:

• Chest pain
• Circulatory disorder
• Disorders of consciousness
• Breathing difficulties
• Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
• Severe bleeding
• Allergic shock

“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.

Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.

Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.

“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
 

Four of 10 Cases

The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.

In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.

The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.

The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).

According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
 

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

Caring for older adults was one of the most rewarding parts of my years practicing as a clinical cardiologist. I appreciated their wisdom, humor, and, very often, their respect and appreciation for physicians. It was always upsetting to see them suffer a mild fall or episode of atrial fibrillation and recognize that it could have major health ramifications.

Life expectancy has improved dramatically, but longer lifespans also mean more opportunity for illness, pain, chronic disease, and dependence on others. Having successfully helped older adults live longer, the question now becomes, how can we, as physicians, add more life to those years? How can we increase their “healthspans”?

That is not just a question for geriatric care. With fewer than two practicing geriatricians for every 10,000 older individuals, it is obvious that geriatricians cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. Almost all primary care physicians and subspecialists should prepare to care for older individuals and help them age healthfully.

Susan Friedman, MD, a board-certified geriatrics and lifestyle medicine clinician at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, reviewed the literature on the connection between lifestyle and healthy aging and concluded that the integration of lifestyle medicine into medical care for older adults is key to compressing morbidity. The pillars of lifestyle medicine — optimal nutrition, physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances — both individually or as a sum are associated with less chronic disease, improved engagement in life, better physical and cognitive function, less frailty, and less sarcopenia. Framing discussions with patients around the six pillars of lifestyle medicine can be an effective strategy.
 

Optimal Nutrition

For a variety of reasons, older adults, especially those living alone, often lose the desire to prepare a nourishing meal. Older adults require different protein intake than younger patients to offset age-related sarcopenia, but helping them select healthy sources of protein is imperative. Both adequate protein consumption and eating patterns high in vegetables, legumes, fruit, and nuts and low in saturated fat, red meat, and processed meat can lower the risk of developing frailty.

Asking a patient to share a 24-hour food recall, and based upon that, resourcing nutritional guidance, a lifestyle medicine program or specialist, and insurance or community resources for food-as-medicine services, is a good first step.
 

Physical Activity

Increasing general physical activity can be a tough ask for many older adults, and joint pain is a common reason they demur. Messaging around targeted exercises to mitigate falls, improve muscle strength, and reduce joint pain may be more appealing. Contemporary research demonstrates that exercise, particularly open-skill exercise that requires quick decisions (such as table tennis) can be powerful. Maintaining cognition, mood enhancement, and independence may also be motivating messages.

The first step is curiosity: What does your patient like to do? Referral to a physical therapist or an exercise specialist to provide stepwise guidance along with resourcing community opportunities can then follow.
 

Restorative Sleep

“I’m old. I don’t need as much sleep.” We’ve probably all heard older patients say this. But the National Sleep Foundation’s report on sleep health and aging indicates that the need to sleep does not decrease with age. The ability to sleep, however, may decline. Assessing and treating disordered sleep is another example of how each lifestyle medicine pillar, such as nutrition and physical activity, is multidimensional and interacts to support the functional integrity of older patients. It’s hard to feel motivated to go for a walk if you lack adequate sleep.
 

Stress Management

Exploring stress with patients can be very revealing. Do they experience stress that energizes and has a positive effect? How much of their day is spent in negatively impactful distress? Chronic stress has been shown to affect immune function in older individuals. Start conversations with your older patients to normalize the importance of stress as a health measure.
 

Positive Social Connections

Loneliness puts individuals at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, and dementia and even increases the risk for premature death by up to 60%. Yet, clinicians and patients rarely discuss social connections during medical appointments. Tools such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale exist for health practitioners to assess and identify patients at risk for loneliness, as do resources to integrate social care into the delivery of healthcare.
 

Avoidance of Risky Substances

Alcohol assessments are not just for younger patients. One study found that 5.6 million adults ages 65 or older engaged in binge drinking in the past month. Because of body changes, the negative effects of alcohol may be greater on older adults, including interactions between alcohol and commonly prescribed medications. 

Conducting a lifestyle assessment is an important way to engage with older patients and allows clinicians to identify opportunities to improve health behaviors, understand obstacles, and support patients to make lifestyle changes. It may uncover ways to remove some of the pill and treatment burdens that older adults often experience. The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) offers clinical practice resources to support clinicians as well as “Lifestyle Medicine and Food as Medicine Essentials,” a 5.5-hour complimentary CE/CME course on food and lifestyle medicine that introduces clinicians to the therapeutic use of lifestyle medicine. ACLM also offers members interest groups focused on geriatrics, fitness, and mental health, which may be beneficial to clinicians treating older adults.

By engaging with older patients on their lifestyle behaviors, we can ensure that we are doing all we can to help them live longer — and live better.

Dr. Collings is director of lifestyle medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and past president, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Caring for older adults was one of the most rewarding parts of my years practicing as a clinical cardiologist. I appreciated their wisdom, humor, and, very often, their respect and appreciation for physicians. It was always upsetting to see them suffer a mild fall or episode of atrial fibrillation and recognize that it could have major health ramifications.

Life expectancy has improved dramatically, but longer lifespans also mean more opportunity for illness, pain, chronic disease, and dependence on others. Having successfully helped older adults live longer, the question now becomes, how can we, as physicians, add more life to those years? How can we increase their “healthspans”?

That is not just a question for geriatric care. With fewer than two practicing geriatricians for every 10,000 older individuals, it is obvious that geriatricians cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. Almost all primary care physicians and subspecialists should prepare to care for older individuals and help them age healthfully.

Susan Friedman, MD, a board-certified geriatrics and lifestyle medicine clinician at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, reviewed the literature on the connection between lifestyle and healthy aging and concluded that the integration of lifestyle medicine into medical care for older adults is key to compressing morbidity. The pillars of lifestyle medicine — optimal nutrition, physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances — both individually or as a sum are associated with less chronic disease, improved engagement in life, better physical and cognitive function, less frailty, and less sarcopenia. Framing discussions with patients around the six pillars of lifestyle medicine can be an effective strategy.
 

Optimal Nutrition

For a variety of reasons, older adults, especially those living alone, often lose the desire to prepare a nourishing meal. Older adults require different protein intake than younger patients to offset age-related sarcopenia, but helping them select healthy sources of protein is imperative. Both adequate protein consumption and eating patterns high in vegetables, legumes, fruit, and nuts and low in saturated fat, red meat, and processed meat can lower the risk of developing frailty.

Asking a patient to share a 24-hour food recall, and based upon that, resourcing nutritional guidance, a lifestyle medicine program or specialist, and insurance or community resources for food-as-medicine services, is a good first step.
 

Physical Activity

Increasing general physical activity can be a tough ask for many older adults, and joint pain is a common reason they demur. Messaging around targeted exercises to mitigate falls, improve muscle strength, and reduce joint pain may be more appealing. Contemporary research demonstrates that exercise, particularly open-skill exercise that requires quick decisions (such as table tennis) can be powerful. Maintaining cognition, mood enhancement, and independence may also be motivating messages.

The first step is curiosity: What does your patient like to do? Referral to a physical therapist or an exercise specialist to provide stepwise guidance along with resourcing community opportunities can then follow.
 

Restorative Sleep

“I’m old. I don’t need as much sleep.” We’ve probably all heard older patients say this. But the National Sleep Foundation’s report on sleep health and aging indicates that the need to sleep does not decrease with age. The ability to sleep, however, may decline. Assessing and treating disordered sleep is another example of how each lifestyle medicine pillar, such as nutrition and physical activity, is multidimensional and interacts to support the functional integrity of older patients. It’s hard to feel motivated to go for a walk if you lack adequate sleep.
 

Stress Management

Exploring stress with patients can be very revealing. Do they experience stress that energizes and has a positive effect? How much of their day is spent in negatively impactful distress? Chronic stress has been shown to affect immune function in older individuals. Start conversations with your older patients to normalize the importance of stress as a health measure.
 

Positive Social Connections

Loneliness puts individuals at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, and dementia and even increases the risk for premature death by up to 60%. Yet, clinicians and patients rarely discuss social connections during medical appointments. Tools such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale exist for health practitioners to assess and identify patients at risk for loneliness, as do resources to integrate social care into the delivery of healthcare.
 

Avoidance of Risky Substances

Alcohol assessments are not just for younger patients. One study found that 5.6 million adults ages 65 or older engaged in binge drinking in the past month. Because of body changes, the negative effects of alcohol may be greater on older adults, including interactions between alcohol and commonly prescribed medications. 

Conducting a lifestyle assessment is an important way to engage with older patients and allows clinicians to identify opportunities to improve health behaviors, understand obstacles, and support patients to make lifestyle changes. It may uncover ways to remove some of the pill and treatment burdens that older adults often experience. The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) offers clinical practice resources to support clinicians as well as “Lifestyle Medicine and Food as Medicine Essentials,” a 5.5-hour complimentary CE/CME course on food and lifestyle medicine that introduces clinicians to the therapeutic use of lifestyle medicine. ACLM also offers members interest groups focused on geriatrics, fitness, and mental health, which may be beneficial to clinicians treating older adults.

By engaging with older patients on their lifestyle behaviors, we can ensure that we are doing all we can to help them live longer — and live better.

Dr. Collings is director of lifestyle medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and past president, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Caring for older adults was one of the most rewarding parts of my years practicing as a clinical cardiologist. I appreciated their wisdom, humor, and, very often, their respect and appreciation for physicians. It was always upsetting to see them suffer a mild fall or episode of atrial fibrillation and recognize that it could have major health ramifications.

Life expectancy has improved dramatically, but longer lifespans also mean more opportunity for illness, pain, chronic disease, and dependence on others. Having successfully helped older adults live longer, the question now becomes, how can we, as physicians, add more life to those years? How can we increase their “healthspans”?

That is not just a question for geriatric care. With fewer than two practicing geriatricians for every 10,000 older individuals, it is obvious that geriatricians cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. Almost all primary care physicians and subspecialists should prepare to care for older individuals and help them age healthfully.

Susan Friedman, MD, a board-certified geriatrics and lifestyle medicine clinician at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, reviewed the literature on the connection between lifestyle and healthy aging and concluded that the integration of lifestyle medicine into medical care for older adults is key to compressing morbidity. The pillars of lifestyle medicine — optimal nutrition, physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances — both individually or as a sum are associated with less chronic disease, improved engagement in life, better physical and cognitive function, less frailty, and less sarcopenia. Framing discussions with patients around the six pillars of lifestyle medicine can be an effective strategy.
 

Optimal Nutrition

For a variety of reasons, older adults, especially those living alone, often lose the desire to prepare a nourishing meal. Older adults require different protein intake than younger patients to offset age-related sarcopenia, but helping them select healthy sources of protein is imperative. Both adequate protein consumption and eating patterns high in vegetables, legumes, fruit, and nuts and low in saturated fat, red meat, and processed meat can lower the risk of developing frailty.

Asking a patient to share a 24-hour food recall, and based upon that, resourcing nutritional guidance, a lifestyle medicine program or specialist, and insurance or community resources for food-as-medicine services, is a good first step.
 

Physical Activity

Increasing general physical activity can be a tough ask for many older adults, and joint pain is a common reason they demur. Messaging around targeted exercises to mitigate falls, improve muscle strength, and reduce joint pain may be more appealing. Contemporary research demonstrates that exercise, particularly open-skill exercise that requires quick decisions (such as table tennis) can be powerful. Maintaining cognition, mood enhancement, and independence may also be motivating messages.

The first step is curiosity: What does your patient like to do? Referral to a physical therapist or an exercise specialist to provide stepwise guidance along with resourcing community opportunities can then follow.
 

Restorative Sleep

“I’m old. I don’t need as much sleep.” We’ve probably all heard older patients say this. But the National Sleep Foundation’s report on sleep health and aging indicates that the need to sleep does not decrease with age. The ability to sleep, however, may decline. Assessing and treating disordered sleep is another example of how each lifestyle medicine pillar, such as nutrition and physical activity, is multidimensional and interacts to support the functional integrity of older patients. It’s hard to feel motivated to go for a walk if you lack adequate sleep.
 

Stress Management

Exploring stress with patients can be very revealing. Do they experience stress that energizes and has a positive effect? How much of their day is spent in negatively impactful distress? Chronic stress has been shown to affect immune function in older individuals. Start conversations with your older patients to normalize the importance of stress as a health measure.
 

Positive Social Connections

Loneliness puts individuals at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, and dementia and even increases the risk for premature death by up to 60%. Yet, clinicians and patients rarely discuss social connections during medical appointments. Tools such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale exist for health practitioners to assess and identify patients at risk for loneliness, as do resources to integrate social care into the delivery of healthcare.
 

Avoidance of Risky Substances

Alcohol assessments are not just for younger patients. One study found that 5.6 million adults ages 65 or older engaged in binge drinking in the past month. Because of body changes, the negative effects of alcohol may be greater on older adults, including interactions between alcohol and commonly prescribed medications. 

Conducting a lifestyle assessment is an important way to engage with older patients and allows clinicians to identify opportunities to improve health behaviors, understand obstacles, and support patients to make lifestyle changes. It may uncover ways to remove some of the pill and treatment burdens that older adults often experience. The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) offers clinical practice resources to support clinicians as well as “Lifestyle Medicine and Food as Medicine Essentials,” a 5.5-hour complimentary CE/CME course on food and lifestyle medicine that introduces clinicians to the therapeutic use of lifestyle medicine. ACLM also offers members interest groups focused on geriatrics, fitness, and mental health, which may be beneficial to clinicians treating older adults.

By engaging with older patients on their lifestyle behaviors, we can ensure that we are doing all we can to help them live longer — and live better.

Dr. Collings is director of lifestyle medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and past president, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM BMJ

The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.

Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.

Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.

Vinter_Nicklas_Denmark_web.jpg

The Study

The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.

All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

Among the findings:

• Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
• Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
• Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
• The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.

“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.

Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”

Higgins_John_P_TX_web.jpg

Wu_Jianhua_UK_web.JPG

FROM BMJ

The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.

Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.

Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.

Vinter_Nicklas_Denmark_web.jpg

The Study

The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.

All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

Among the findings:

• Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
• Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
• Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
• The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.

“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.

Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”

Higgins_John_P_TX_web.jpg

Wu_Jianhua_UK_web.JPG

FROM BMJ

The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.

Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.

Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.

Vinter_Nicklas_Denmark_web.jpg

The Study

The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.

All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

Among the findings:

• Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
• Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
• Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
• The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.

“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.

Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”

Higgins_John_P_TX_web.jpg

Wu_Jianhua_UK_web.JPG

TOPLINE:

A low-fat vegan diet — high in fiber and carbohydrates and moderate in protein — reduces insulin requirement, increases insulin sensitivity, and improves glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) compared with a conventional portion-controlled diet.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effects of a low-fat vegan diet (without carbohydrate or portion restriction) were compared with those of a conventional portion-controlled, carbohydrate-controlled diet in 58 patients with T1D (age, ≥ 18 years) who had been receiving stable insulin treatment for the past 3 months.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the vegan diet (n = 29), comprising vegetables, grains, legumes, and fruits, or the portion-controlled diet (n = 29), which reduced daily energy intake by 500-1000 kcal/d in participants with overweight while maintaining a stable carbohydrate intake.
• The primary clinical outcomes were insulin requirement (total daily dose of insulin), insulin sensitivity, and glycemic control (A1c).
• Other assessments included the blood, lipid profile, blood urea nitrogen, blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio, and body weight.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study was completed by 18 participants in the vegan-diet group and 17 in the portion-controlled group.
• In the vegan group, the total daily dose of insulin decreased by 12.1 units/d (P = .007) and insulin sensitivity increased by 6.6 g of carbohydrate per unit of insulin on average (P = .002), with no significant changes in the portion-controlled diet group.
• Participants on the vegan diet had lower levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood urea nitrogen and a lower blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio (P for all < .001), whereas both vegan and portion-controlled groups had lower A1c levels.
• Body weight decreased by 5.2 kg (P < .001) in the vegan group; there were no significant changes in the portion-controlled group.
• For every 1-kg weight loss, there was a 2.16-unit decrease in the insulin total daily dose and a 0.9-unit increase in insulin sensitivity.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides substantial support for a low-fat vegan diet that is high in fiber and carbohydrates, low in fat, and moderate in protein” and suggests the potential therapeutic use of this diet in type 1 diabetes management, the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study led by Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, was published in Clinical Diabetes.

LIMITATIONS:

Dietary intake was recorded on the basis of self-reported data. A higher attrition rate was observed due to meal and blood glucose monitoring. The findings may have limited generalizability as the study participants comprised those seeking help for T1D.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and a grant from the Institute for Technology in Healthcare. Some authors reported receiving compensation, being cofounders of a coaching program, writing books, providing nutrition coaching, giving lectures, or receiving royalties and honoraria from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A low-fat vegan diet — high in fiber and carbohydrates and moderate in protein — reduces insulin requirement, increases insulin sensitivity, and improves glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) compared with a conventional portion-controlled diet.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effects of a low-fat vegan diet (without carbohydrate or portion restriction) were compared with those of a conventional portion-controlled, carbohydrate-controlled diet in 58 patients with T1D (age, ≥ 18 years) who had been receiving stable insulin treatment for the past 3 months.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the vegan diet (n = 29), comprising vegetables, grains, legumes, and fruits, or the portion-controlled diet (n = 29), which reduced daily energy intake by 500-1000 kcal/d in participants with overweight while maintaining a stable carbohydrate intake.
• The primary clinical outcomes were insulin requirement (total daily dose of insulin), insulin sensitivity, and glycemic control (A1c).
• Other assessments included the blood, lipid profile, blood urea nitrogen, blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio, and body weight.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study was completed by 18 participants in the vegan-diet group and 17 in the portion-controlled group.
• In the vegan group, the total daily dose of insulin decreased by 12.1 units/d (P = .007) and insulin sensitivity increased by 6.6 g of carbohydrate per unit of insulin on average (P = .002), with no significant changes in the portion-controlled diet group.
• Participants on the vegan diet had lower levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood urea nitrogen and a lower blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio (P for all < .001), whereas both vegan and portion-controlled groups had lower A1c levels.
• Body weight decreased by 5.2 kg (P < .001) in the vegan group; there were no significant changes in the portion-controlled group.
• For every 1-kg weight loss, there was a 2.16-unit decrease in the insulin total daily dose and a 0.9-unit increase in insulin sensitivity.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides substantial support for a low-fat vegan diet that is high in fiber and carbohydrates, low in fat, and moderate in protein” and suggests the potential therapeutic use of this diet in type 1 diabetes management, the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study led by Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, was published in Clinical Diabetes.

LIMITATIONS:

Dietary intake was recorded on the basis of self-reported data. A higher attrition rate was observed due to meal and blood glucose monitoring. The findings may have limited generalizability as the study participants comprised those seeking help for T1D.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and a grant from the Institute for Technology in Healthcare. Some authors reported receiving compensation, being cofounders of a coaching program, writing books, providing nutrition coaching, giving lectures, or receiving royalties and honoraria from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A low-fat vegan diet — high in fiber and carbohydrates and moderate in protein — reduces insulin requirement, increases insulin sensitivity, and improves glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) compared with a conventional portion-controlled diet.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effects of a low-fat vegan diet (without carbohydrate or portion restriction) were compared with those of a conventional portion-controlled, carbohydrate-controlled diet in 58 patients with T1D (age, ≥ 18 years) who had been receiving stable insulin treatment for the past 3 months.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the vegan diet (n = 29), comprising vegetables, grains, legumes, and fruits, or the portion-controlled diet (n = 29), which reduced daily energy intake by 500-1000 kcal/d in participants with overweight while maintaining a stable carbohydrate intake.
• The primary clinical outcomes were insulin requirement (total daily dose of insulin), insulin sensitivity, and glycemic control (A1c).
• Other assessments included the blood, lipid profile, blood urea nitrogen, blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio, and body weight.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study was completed by 18 participants in the vegan-diet group and 17 in the portion-controlled group.
• In the vegan group, the total daily dose of insulin decreased by 12.1 units/d (P = .007) and insulin sensitivity increased by 6.6 g of carbohydrate per unit of insulin on average (P = .002), with no significant changes in the portion-controlled diet group.
• Participants on the vegan diet had lower levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood urea nitrogen and a lower blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio (P for all < .001), whereas both vegan and portion-controlled groups had lower A1c levels.
• Body weight decreased by 5.2 kg (P < .001) in the vegan group; there were no significant changes in the portion-controlled group.
• For every 1-kg weight loss, there was a 2.16-unit decrease in the insulin total daily dose and a 0.9-unit increase in insulin sensitivity.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides substantial support for a low-fat vegan diet that is high in fiber and carbohydrates, low in fat, and moderate in protein” and suggests the potential therapeutic use of this diet in type 1 diabetes management, the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study led by Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, was published in Clinical Diabetes.

LIMITATIONS:

Dietary intake was recorded on the basis of self-reported data. A higher attrition rate was observed due to meal and blood glucose monitoring. The findings may have limited generalizability as the study participants comprised those seeking help for T1D.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and a grant from the Institute for Technology in Healthcare. Some authors reported receiving compensation, being cofounders of a coaching program, writing books, providing nutrition coaching, giving lectures, or receiving royalties and honoraria from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Unlike traditional antidiabetic therapies, which have never been associated with a significant reduction in stroke in a major trial, some of the newer drugs are showing that benefit, but the protection is not linked to tighter glycemic control.

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the evidence is strong that “they are not working through glycemic control per se,” according to Larry B. Goldstein, MD, chair of neurology, University of Kentucky School of Medicine, Louisville. “But it is not yet clear what the mechanism of benefit is.”

Goldstein_Larry_KY_web.jpg

Stroke Prevention With Antidiabetic Drugs

“What has changed is that we have new ways of glycemic control, and some of these do show protection against stroke,” Dr. Goldstein said. Yet, the newer drugs do not do a better job at sustained reductions of HbA1c or other measures of reaching lower blood glucose reductions when adherence is similar.

“The level of glucose control with the newer agents is really about the same,” Dr. Goldstein said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where he led a symposium called Controversies in Stroke Treatment and Prevention.

The newer agents, such as sodium glucose co-transport-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), have been associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in cardiovascular events. However, it is not clear that even these two medications perform similarly for stroke prevention specifically.

Of these two drug classes, Dr. Goldstein said the evidence most strongly supports GLP-1 receptor agonists. He cited one meta-analysis of eight randomized studies that calculated a risk reduction of about 15% whether calculated for fatal or nonfatal strokes. For each the protection was highly statistically significant (P = .0002 and P < .001, respectively).

In contrast, the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors is weaker. In a study that distilled data from large cardiovascular trials with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), and pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, only GLP-1RA drugs were associated with a highly significant (P < .001) reduction in risk of stroke. The risk reduction for pioglitazone reached significance (P = .025), but there was no signal of risk reduction for SGLT2i (P = .88) or for DPP4i (P = .5).
 

Weight Loss Is Potential Mechanism

Looking to explain the protection from stroke associated with some of the newer antidiabetic therapies, Gordon Kelley, MD, who leads the stroke program for AdventHealth Medical Group, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, suggested that weight loss is probably important.

“In our group, we work as a team to manage stroke risk in patients with diabetes, so I am not much involved in the choice of antidiabetic therapies, but it does seem that SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonists share weight loss as an effect beyond glucose control,” he said.

Dr. Goldstein agreed that weight loss is a potential contributor to the cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i, but he indicated that it might not help explain the reduction in stroke, an effect demonstrated repeatedly with GLP-1RA but inconsistently with SGLT2i.

The argument against weight loss as the critical mechanism of stroke prevention from newer antidiabetic drugs is strengthened by studies that suggest weight loss with SGLT2i appears to be even better than on GLP-1RA. In a study published in a pharmacy journal, weight loss was about twice as great among T2DM patients after 6 months of treatment managed with SGLT2i relative to those on a GLP-1RA (-2.8 vs 1.15 kg; P = .014).
 

Newer Antidiabetic Agents Guideline Recommended

In the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, stroke reduction is not discussed as an isolated risk, but these guidelines do recommend GLP-1RA or SGLT2i after metformin for glycemic control in T2DM patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors. This is based on evidence that drugs of both classes reduce risk for ASCVD events. The risk reduction has been particularly strong for heart failure.

For the risk of stroke specifically in patients with T2DM, Dr. Goldstein recommended calculating the ASCVD risk with the simple but well validated ACC risk calculator that is available online and is quickly completed when values for patient risk factors are readily available. For those with greater than 10% risk of an event in the next 10 years, he thinks GLP-1RA are a reasonable choice for prevention of stroke and other ASCVD events.

“GLP-1RA is mentioned in the guidelines, so this is supported,” said Dr. Goldstein, although adding that his choice of this class over SGLT2i is a personal if informed recommendation. He believes that the data favor GLP-1RA even if the exact mechanism of this protection is yet to be identified.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Kelley report no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike traditional antidiabetic therapies, which have never been associated with a significant reduction in stroke in a major trial, some of the newer drugs are showing that benefit, but the protection is not linked to tighter glycemic control.

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the evidence is strong that “they are not working through glycemic control per se,” according to Larry B. Goldstein, MD, chair of neurology, University of Kentucky School of Medicine, Louisville. “But it is not yet clear what the mechanism of benefit is.”

Goldstein_Larry_KY_web.jpg

Stroke Prevention With Antidiabetic Drugs

“What has changed is that we have new ways of glycemic control, and some of these do show protection against stroke,” Dr. Goldstein said. Yet, the newer drugs do not do a better job at sustained reductions of HbA1c or other measures of reaching lower blood glucose reductions when adherence is similar.

“The level of glucose control with the newer agents is really about the same,” Dr. Goldstein said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where he led a symposium called Controversies in Stroke Treatment and Prevention.

The newer agents, such as sodium glucose co-transport-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), have been associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in cardiovascular events. However, it is not clear that even these two medications perform similarly for stroke prevention specifically.

Of these two drug classes, Dr. Goldstein said the evidence most strongly supports GLP-1 receptor agonists. He cited one meta-analysis of eight randomized studies that calculated a risk reduction of about 15% whether calculated for fatal or nonfatal strokes. For each the protection was highly statistically significant (P = .0002 and P < .001, respectively).

In contrast, the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors is weaker. In a study that distilled data from large cardiovascular trials with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), and pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, only GLP-1RA drugs were associated with a highly significant (P < .001) reduction in risk of stroke. The risk reduction for pioglitazone reached significance (P = .025), but there was no signal of risk reduction for SGLT2i (P = .88) or for DPP4i (P = .5).
 

Weight Loss Is Potential Mechanism

Looking to explain the protection from stroke associated with some of the newer antidiabetic therapies, Gordon Kelley, MD, who leads the stroke program for AdventHealth Medical Group, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, suggested that weight loss is probably important.

“In our group, we work as a team to manage stroke risk in patients with diabetes, so I am not much involved in the choice of antidiabetic therapies, but it does seem that SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonists share weight loss as an effect beyond glucose control,” he said.

Dr. Goldstein agreed that weight loss is a potential contributor to the cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i, but he indicated that it might not help explain the reduction in stroke, an effect demonstrated repeatedly with GLP-1RA but inconsistently with SGLT2i.

The argument against weight loss as the critical mechanism of stroke prevention from newer antidiabetic drugs is strengthened by studies that suggest weight loss with SGLT2i appears to be even better than on GLP-1RA. In a study published in a pharmacy journal, weight loss was about twice as great among T2DM patients after 6 months of treatment managed with SGLT2i relative to those on a GLP-1RA (-2.8 vs 1.15 kg; P = .014).
 

Newer Antidiabetic Agents Guideline Recommended

In the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, stroke reduction is not discussed as an isolated risk, but these guidelines do recommend GLP-1RA or SGLT2i after metformin for glycemic control in T2DM patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors. This is based on evidence that drugs of both classes reduce risk for ASCVD events. The risk reduction has been particularly strong for heart failure.

For the risk of stroke specifically in patients with T2DM, Dr. Goldstein recommended calculating the ASCVD risk with the simple but well validated ACC risk calculator that is available online and is quickly completed when values for patient risk factors are readily available. For those with greater than 10% risk of an event in the next 10 years, he thinks GLP-1RA are a reasonable choice for prevention of stroke and other ASCVD events.

“GLP-1RA is mentioned in the guidelines, so this is supported,” said Dr. Goldstein, although adding that his choice of this class over SGLT2i is a personal if informed recommendation. He believes that the data favor GLP-1RA even if the exact mechanism of this protection is yet to be identified.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Kelley report no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike traditional antidiabetic therapies, which have never been associated with a significant reduction in stroke in a major trial, some of the newer drugs are showing that benefit, but the protection is not linked to tighter glycemic control.

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the evidence is strong that “they are not working through glycemic control per se,” according to Larry B. Goldstein, MD, chair of neurology, University of Kentucky School of Medicine, Louisville. “But it is not yet clear what the mechanism of benefit is.”

Goldstein_Larry_KY_web.jpg

Stroke Prevention With Antidiabetic Drugs

“What has changed is that we have new ways of glycemic control, and some of these do show protection against stroke,” Dr. Goldstein said. Yet, the newer drugs do not do a better job at sustained reductions of HbA1c or other measures of reaching lower blood glucose reductions when adherence is similar.

“The level of glucose control with the newer agents is really about the same,” Dr. Goldstein said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where he led a symposium called Controversies in Stroke Treatment and Prevention.

The newer agents, such as sodium glucose co-transport-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), have been associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in cardiovascular events. However, it is not clear that even these two medications perform similarly for stroke prevention specifically.

Of these two drug classes, Dr. Goldstein said the evidence most strongly supports GLP-1 receptor agonists. He cited one meta-analysis of eight randomized studies that calculated a risk reduction of about 15% whether calculated for fatal or nonfatal strokes. For each the protection was highly statistically significant (P = .0002 and P < .001, respectively).

In contrast, the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors is weaker. In a study that distilled data from large cardiovascular trials with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), and pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, only GLP-1RA drugs were associated with a highly significant (P < .001) reduction in risk of stroke. The risk reduction for pioglitazone reached significance (P = .025), but there was no signal of risk reduction for SGLT2i (P = .88) or for DPP4i (P = .5).
 

Weight Loss Is Potential Mechanism

Looking to explain the protection from stroke associated with some of the newer antidiabetic therapies, Gordon Kelley, MD, who leads the stroke program for AdventHealth Medical Group, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, suggested that weight loss is probably important.

“In our group, we work as a team to manage stroke risk in patients with diabetes, so I am not much involved in the choice of antidiabetic therapies, but it does seem that SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonists share weight loss as an effect beyond glucose control,” he said.

Dr. Goldstein agreed that weight loss is a potential contributor to the cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i, but he indicated that it might not help explain the reduction in stroke, an effect demonstrated repeatedly with GLP-1RA but inconsistently with SGLT2i.

The argument against weight loss as the critical mechanism of stroke prevention from newer antidiabetic drugs is strengthened by studies that suggest weight loss with SGLT2i appears to be even better than on GLP-1RA. In a study published in a pharmacy journal, weight loss was about twice as great among T2DM patients after 6 months of treatment managed with SGLT2i relative to those on a GLP-1RA (-2.8 vs 1.15 kg; P = .014).
 

Newer Antidiabetic Agents Guideline Recommended

In the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, stroke reduction is not discussed as an isolated risk, but these guidelines do recommend GLP-1RA or SGLT2i after metformin for glycemic control in T2DM patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors. This is based on evidence that drugs of both classes reduce risk for ASCVD events. The risk reduction has been particularly strong for heart failure.

For the risk of stroke specifically in patients with T2DM, Dr. Goldstein recommended calculating the ASCVD risk with the simple but well validated ACC risk calculator that is available online and is quickly completed when values for patient risk factors are readily available. For those with greater than 10% risk of an event in the next 10 years, he thinks GLP-1RA are a reasonable choice for prevention of stroke and other ASCVD events.

“GLP-1RA is mentioned in the guidelines, so this is supported,” said Dr. Goldstein, although adding that his choice of this class over SGLT2i is a personal if informed recommendation. He believes that the data favor GLP-1RA even if the exact mechanism of this protection is yet to be identified.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Kelley report no potential conflicts of interest.

Use of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) proved non-inferior to guideline-recommended continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in a randomized trial.

The investigator-initiated CRESCENT trial showed that at 6 months, the MAD group had a reduction of 2.5 mm Hg in 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure vs no change in the CPAP group, for a nonsignificant between-group difference of 1.6 mm Hg. 

“These findings suggest that MAD could be considered an alternative to CPAP for optimizing blood pressure control in OSA patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk,” the researchers conclude. 

“Looking at the totality of evidence available in the literature, it is still reasonable to say that CPAP is the first-line treatment until we have more data on the MAD,” said Ronald Lee Chi-Hang, MD, professor of medicine at Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, who presented the results.

“However, for patients who truly cannot tolerate or accept using a CPAP, we should be more open-minded in looking for an alternative therapy such as a MAD, which based on our study, numerically had a better blood pressure reduction in patients compared with a CPAP,” said Dr. Chi-Hang, who is also a senior consultant in the Department of Cardiology at Singapore’s National University Heart Centre. 

The results were presented April 6 at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2024 and published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
 

Oral Appliance

OSA is increasingly recognized as “an underdiagnosed and modifiable cause of hypertension,” the researchers note in their report. “Patients with OSA develop recurrent collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in hypoxemia, sympathetic hyperactivity, and BP surges.” 

Current guidelines recommend screening and treatment of OSA in patients with hypertension, and CPAP is considered first-line therapy, they note. 

“Despite being effective, unfortunately, many patients decline to use a CPAP or find it challenging to stick to the therapy,” Dr. Chi-Hang said, particularly those without daytime sleepiness. 

MADs are oral appliances that work by advancing the mandible about 5 to 10 mm during sleep, he said. They provide an alternative to OSA patients and have been shown to improve daytime sleepiness and quality of life, “and in general, is better accepted and tolerated than CPAP.” 

However, early studies are small, with short follow up, included patients with and without hypertension, and didn’t specify BP reduction as the primary outcome. 

The CRESCENT trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, non-inferiority trial that aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of MAD vs CPAP in reducing 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. The prespecified margin for non-inferiority was 1.5 mm Hg. 

A total of 321 participants were recruited at three public hospitals for polysomnography. All were older than age 40 years, had hypertension, and were at increased cardiovascular risk. Of these, 220 with moderate-to-severe OSA, defined as an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 15 events/hour, were randomly assigned to either MAD or CPAP treatment. 

The primary outcome was the difference between the 24-hour mean arterial BP at baseline and 6 months. The median age was 61 years, most patients (85.5%) were male, and all were Chinese. All had essential hypertension and were on one or more antihypertensive medications. Hypertension was relatively well controlled at baseline.

At 6 months, 24-hour mean arterial BP decreased by 2.5 mm Hg in the MAD group (P = .003) compared to no change from baseline in the CPAP group (P = .374). 

The between-group difference was -1.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.51 to 0.24, non-inferiority P < .001). 

There was a larger between-group reduction in all secondary ambulatory BP parameters in the MAD versus the CPAP group, with the most pronounced effects seen in the asleep BP parameters. 

Both the MAD and CPAP significantly improved daytime sleepiness, with no between-group differences (P =.384). There were no between-group differences in cardiovascular biomarkers. 

During the presentation, panel discussant Julie B. Damp, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt Health in Nashville, Tennessee, called CRESCENT “a really interesting study, and I think it has a lot of information to add [regarding] what we know about this comparison in the literature, because this is a big study and it also followed these patients for longer than we’ve seen in some of the previous studies.”

Dr. Damp asked, however, about how these results might be extrapolated to other populations, since the vast majority of participants were male. 

Dr. Chi-Hang pointed out that most OSA studies include mostly male patients, but noted that particularly in Asian culture, female patients may be more conservative in seeking treatment for problems with snoring, poor quality of sleep, or extensive daytime sleepiness. “Therefore, lots of times, even in clinical practice, we see that over 80 or 90% of patients are male patients,” he said. 

Dr. Damp followed up by asking about the differential effectiveness of CPAP vs MAD. “Just in thinking about these two therapies, there is some evidence that the mandibular devices are potentially less effective on some of the sleep apnea-specific measures, so how much of this do you think is an issue of a better vs a not better treatment as opposed to an issue truly of compliance and what patients are able to tolerate?”

Dr. Chi-Hang agreed that in terms of reducing the AHI, CPAP is more effective than MAD. “In fact, in our data, the residual AHI was 10 for the MAD group and 2 for the CPAP group. Clearly, CPAP is more effective,” he said. “But the problem we are facing in this area is the value of AHI as an index is being questioned.” 

AHI considers only the number of events, without taking into account the duration or the depth of the apnea, he said. “AHI is simply not an ideal index to document the disease severity,” or the impact on cardiovascular outcomes. 
 

A Tailored Approach

In an editorial accompanying the JACC publication, Michele Emdin, MD, PhD, Francesco Gentile, MD, and Alberto Giannoni, MD, PhD, all from the Health Science Interdisciplinary Center, Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna, and Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, in Pisa, Italy, commend the researchers for designing and conducting “such a pragmatic and informative trial, which confirms and extends previous findings.” 

They also discuss the compliance vs effectiveness issue, pointing out that although CPAP appeared to be more effective in reducing apnea burden, there was higher adherence to MAD — with 57% using the device 6 or more hours per night, vs 23% for CPAP — which might have offset the greater reduction in apnea burden and resulted in the reduction in blood pressure seen in the trial. 

“Addressing poor adherence to OSA treatments seems therefore necessary, particularly in the case of less symptomatic patients, who often have a lower perception of the related risks,” they write. 

“Currently, a tailored approach seems reasonable, based on updated evidence, considering: a) the differential effects of CPAP or MAD on OSA, blood pressure; b) the treatment feasibility; c) the individual baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including the presence of resistant hypertension; and d) compliance with the therapeutic tool and patient’s preferences,” the editorialists conclude. 

The study was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Health. The authors and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) proved non-inferior to guideline-recommended continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in a randomized trial.

The investigator-initiated CRESCENT trial showed that at 6 months, the MAD group had a reduction of 2.5 mm Hg in 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure vs no change in the CPAP group, for a nonsignificant between-group difference of 1.6 mm Hg. 

“These findings suggest that MAD could be considered an alternative to CPAP for optimizing blood pressure control in OSA patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk,” the researchers conclude. 

“Looking at the totality of evidence available in the literature, it is still reasonable to say that CPAP is the first-line treatment until we have more data on the MAD,” said Ronald Lee Chi-Hang, MD, professor of medicine at Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, who presented the results.

“However, for patients who truly cannot tolerate or accept using a CPAP, we should be more open-minded in looking for an alternative therapy such as a MAD, which based on our study, numerically had a better blood pressure reduction in patients compared with a CPAP,” said Dr. Chi-Hang, who is also a senior consultant in the Department of Cardiology at Singapore’s National University Heart Centre. 

The results were presented April 6 at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2024 and published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
 

Oral Appliance

OSA is increasingly recognized as “an underdiagnosed and modifiable cause of hypertension,” the researchers note in their report. “Patients with OSA develop recurrent collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in hypoxemia, sympathetic hyperactivity, and BP surges.” 

Current guidelines recommend screening and treatment of OSA in patients with hypertension, and CPAP is considered first-line therapy, they note. 

“Despite being effective, unfortunately, many patients decline to use a CPAP or find it challenging to stick to the therapy,” Dr. Chi-Hang said, particularly those without daytime sleepiness. 

MADs are oral appliances that work by advancing the mandible about 5 to 10 mm during sleep, he said. They provide an alternative to OSA patients and have been shown to improve daytime sleepiness and quality of life, “and in general, is better accepted and tolerated than CPAP.” 

However, early studies are small, with short follow up, included patients with and without hypertension, and didn’t specify BP reduction as the primary outcome. 

The CRESCENT trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, non-inferiority trial that aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of MAD vs CPAP in reducing 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. The prespecified margin for non-inferiority was 1.5 mm Hg. 

A total of 321 participants were recruited at three public hospitals for polysomnography. All were older than age 40 years, had hypertension, and were at increased cardiovascular risk. Of these, 220 with moderate-to-severe OSA, defined as an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 15 events/hour, were randomly assigned to either MAD or CPAP treatment. 

The primary outcome was the difference between the 24-hour mean arterial BP at baseline and 6 months. The median age was 61 years, most patients (85.5%) were male, and all were Chinese. All had essential hypertension and were on one or more antihypertensive medications. Hypertension was relatively well controlled at baseline.

At 6 months, 24-hour mean arterial BP decreased by 2.5 mm Hg in the MAD group (P = .003) compared to no change from baseline in the CPAP group (P = .374). 

The between-group difference was -1.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.51 to 0.24, non-inferiority P < .001). 

There was a larger between-group reduction in all secondary ambulatory BP parameters in the MAD versus the CPAP group, with the most pronounced effects seen in the asleep BP parameters. 

Both the MAD and CPAP significantly improved daytime sleepiness, with no between-group differences (P =.384). There were no between-group differences in cardiovascular biomarkers. 

During the presentation, panel discussant Julie B. Damp, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt Health in Nashville, Tennessee, called CRESCENT “a really interesting study, and I think it has a lot of information to add [regarding] what we know about this comparison in the literature, because this is a big study and it also followed these patients for longer than we’ve seen in some of the previous studies.”

Dr. Damp asked, however, about how these results might be extrapolated to other populations, since the vast majority of participants were male. 

Dr. Chi-Hang pointed out that most OSA studies include mostly male patients, but noted that particularly in Asian culture, female patients may be more conservative in seeking treatment for problems with snoring, poor quality of sleep, or extensive daytime sleepiness. “Therefore, lots of times, even in clinical practice, we see that over 80 or 90% of patients are male patients,” he said. 

Dr. Damp followed up by asking about the differential effectiveness of CPAP vs MAD. “Just in thinking about these two therapies, there is some evidence that the mandibular devices are potentially less effective on some of the sleep apnea-specific measures, so how much of this do you think is an issue of a better vs a not better treatment as opposed to an issue truly of compliance and what patients are able to tolerate?”

Dr. Chi-Hang agreed that in terms of reducing the AHI, CPAP is more effective than MAD. “In fact, in our data, the residual AHI was 10 for the MAD group and 2 for the CPAP group. Clearly, CPAP is more effective,” he said. “But the problem we are facing in this area is the value of AHI as an index is being questioned.” 

AHI considers only the number of events, without taking into account the duration or the depth of the apnea, he said. “AHI is simply not an ideal index to document the disease severity,” or the impact on cardiovascular outcomes. 
 

A Tailored Approach

In an editorial accompanying the JACC publication, Michele Emdin, MD, PhD, Francesco Gentile, MD, and Alberto Giannoni, MD, PhD, all from the Health Science Interdisciplinary Center, Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna, and Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, in Pisa, Italy, commend the researchers for designing and conducting “such a pragmatic and informative trial, which confirms and extends previous findings.” 

They also discuss the compliance vs effectiveness issue, pointing out that although CPAP appeared to be more effective in reducing apnea burden, there was higher adherence to MAD — with 57% using the device 6 or more hours per night, vs 23% for CPAP — which might have offset the greater reduction in apnea burden and resulted in the reduction in blood pressure seen in the trial. 

“Addressing poor adherence to OSA treatments seems therefore necessary, particularly in the case of less symptomatic patients, who often have a lower perception of the related risks,” they write. 

“Currently, a tailored approach seems reasonable, based on updated evidence, considering: a) the differential effects of CPAP or MAD on OSA, blood pressure; b) the treatment feasibility; c) the individual baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including the presence of resistant hypertension; and d) compliance with the therapeutic tool and patient’s preferences,” the editorialists conclude. 

The study was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Health. The authors and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) proved non-inferior to guideline-recommended continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in a randomized trial.

The investigator-initiated CRESCENT trial showed that at 6 months, the MAD group had a reduction of 2.5 mm Hg in 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure vs no change in the CPAP group, for a nonsignificant between-group difference of 1.6 mm Hg. 

“These findings suggest that MAD could be considered an alternative to CPAP for optimizing blood pressure control in OSA patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk,” the researchers conclude. 

“Looking at the totality of evidence available in the literature, it is still reasonable to say that CPAP is the first-line treatment until we have more data on the MAD,” said Ronald Lee Chi-Hang, MD, professor of medicine at Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, who presented the results.

“However, for patients who truly cannot tolerate or accept using a CPAP, we should be more open-minded in looking for an alternative therapy such as a MAD, which based on our study, numerically had a better blood pressure reduction in patients compared with a CPAP,” said Dr. Chi-Hang, who is also a senior consultant in the Department of Cardiology at Singapore’s National University Heart Centre. 

The results were presented April 6 at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2024 and published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
 

Oral Appliance

OSA is increasingly recognized as “an underdiagnosed and modifiable cause of hypertension,” the researchers note in their report. “Patients with OSA develop recurrent collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in hypoxemia, sympathetic hyperactivity, and BP surges.” 

Current guidelines recommend screening and treatment of OSA in patients with hypertension, and CPAP is considered first-line therapy, they note. 

“Despite being effective, unfortunately, many patients decline to use a CPAP or find it challenging to stick to the therapy,” Dr. Chi-Hang said, particularly those without daytime sleepiness. 

MADs are oral appliances that work by advancing the mandible about 5 to 10 mm during sleep, he said. They provide an alternative to OSA patients and have been shown to improve daytime sleepiness and quality of life, “and in general, is better accepted and tolerated than CPAP.” 

However, early studies are small, with short follow up, included patients with and without hypertension, and didn’t specify BP reduction as the primary outcome. 

The CRESCENT trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, non-inferiority trial that aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of MAD vs CPAP in reducing 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. The prespecified margin for non-inferiority was 1.5 mm Hg. 

A total of 321 participants were recruited at three public hospitals for polysomnography. All were older than age 40 years, had hypertension, and were at increased cardiovascular risk. Of these, 220 with moderate-to-severe OSA, defined as an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 15 events/hour, were randomly assigned to either MAD or CPAP treatment. 

The primary outcome was the difference between the 24-hour mean arterial BP at baseline and 6 months. The median age was 61 years, most patients (85.5%) were male, and all were Chinese. All had essential hypertension and were on one or more antihypertensive medications. Hypertension was relatively well controlled at baseline.

At 6 months, 24-hour mean arterial BP decreased by 2.5 mm Hg in the MAD group (P = .003) compared to no change from baseline in the CPAP group (P = .374). 

The between-group difference was -1.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.51 to 0.24, non-inferiority P < .001). 

There was a larger between-group reduction in all secondary ambulatory BP parameters in the MAD versus the CPAP group, with the most pronounced effects seen in the asleep BP parameters. 

Both the MAD and CPAP significantly improved daytime sleepiness, with no between-group differences (P =.384). There were no between-group differences in cardiovascular biomarkers. 

During the presentation, panel discussant Julie B. Damp, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt Health in Nashville, Tennessee, called CRESCENT “a really interesting study, and I think it has a lot of information to add [regarding] what we know about this comparison in the literature, because this is a big study and it also followed these patients for longer than we’ve seen in some of the previous studies.”

Dr. Damp asked, however, about how these results might be extrapolated to other populations, since the vast majority of participants were male. 

Dr. Chi-Hang pointed out that most OSA studies include mostly male patients, but noted that particularly in Asian culture, female patients may be more conservative in seeking treatment for problems with snoring, poor quality of sleep, or extensive daytime sleepiness. “Therefore, lots of times, even in clinical practice, we see that over 80 or 90% of patients are male patients,” he said. 

Dr. Damp followed up by asking about the differential effectiveness of CPAP vs MAD. “Just in thinking about these two therapies, there is some evidence that the mandibular devices are potentially less effective on some of the sleep apnea-specific measures, so how much of this do you think is an issue of a better vs a not better treatment as opposed to an issue truly of compliance and what patients are able to tolerate?”

Dr. Chi-Hang agreed that in terms of reducing the AHI, CPAP is more effective than MAD. “In fact, in our data, the residual AHI was 10 for the MAD group and 2 for the CPAP group. Clearly, CPAP is more effective,” he said. “But the problem we are facing in this area is the value of AHI as an index is being questioned.” 

AHI considers only the number of events, without taking into account the duration or the depth of the apnea, he said. “AHI is simply not an ideal index to document the disease severity,” or the impact on cardiovascular outcomes. 
 

A Tailored Approach

In an editorial accompanying the JACC publication, Michele Emdin, MD, PhD, Francesco Gentile, MD, and Alberto Giannoni, MD, PhD, all from the Health Science Interdisciplinary Center, Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna, and Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, in Pisa, Italy, commend the researchers for designing and conducting “such a pragmatic and informative trial, which confirms and extends previous findings.” 

They also discuss the compliance vs effectiveness issue, pointing out that although CPAP appeared to be more effective in reducing apnea burden, there was higher adherence to MAD — with 57% using the device 6 or more hours per night, vs 23% for CPAP — which might have offset the greater reduction in apnea burden and resulted in the reduction in blood pressure seen in the trial. 

“Addressing poor adherence to OSA treatments seems therefore necessary, particularly in the case of less symptomatic patients, who often have a lower perception of the related risks,” they write. 

“Currently, a tailored approach seems reasonable, based on updated evidence, considering: a) the differential effects of CPAP or MAD on OSA, blood pressure; b) the treatment feasibility; c) the individual baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including the presence of resistant hypertension; and d) compliance with the therapeutic tool and patient’s preferences,” the editorialists conclude. 

The study was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Health. The authors and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.