Clinician Reviews

Chronic constipation may be associated with worsening cognitive function, new data from three prospective cohort studies with more than 100,000 adults show.

Compared with individuals who have a bowel movement once daily, adults with constipation who have a bowel movement every 3 days or more had significantly worse cognition that was commensurate with an additional 3 years of chronological cognitive aging, the investigators found.

“We should watch for symptoms of abnormal intestinal function, especially constipation, in older individuals, as these symptoms may hint at a higher risk of cognitive decline in the future,” study investigator Chaoran Ma, MD, PhD, former research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and current assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Prevent constipation, improve brain health?

It’s estimated that 16% of the world’s population suffers from constipation. The problem is more common in older adults, owing to age-related factors such as a lack of dietary fiber and exercise and the use of constipating drugs to treat other medical conditions.

Chronic constipation – defined as having bowel movements every 3 days or more – has been associated with long-term health problems, such as inflammation, hormonal imbalances, anxiety, and depression.

However, few studies have investigated variations in intestinal motility and cognitive function.

“Our study provides first-of-its-kind evidence that examined a wide spectrum of bowel movement frequency, especially an analysis of the more frequent end, in relation to cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said.

The analysis involved data from 112,753 women and men from the Nurses’ Health Study (aged 30-55 years), the Nurses’ Health Study II (aged 25-42), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (aged 40-75).

Data on participants’ bowel movement frequency was collected between 2012 and 2013, and self-assessments of cognitive function were obtained from 2014 to 2017. A subgroup of 12,696 participants completed a standard neuropsychological test battery for objective cognitive assessment between 2014 and 2018.

The results show that bowel movement frequency was associated with overall objective cognitive function and learning and working memory in an inverse J-shape dose-response manner (both P for nonlinearity < .05).

Compared with adults who had one bowel movement daily, those who only had a bowel movement every 3 or more days had significantly worse cognition, equivalent to 3 years of additional aging (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7).

The researchers also observed similar J-shape dose-response relationships of bowel movement frequency with the odds of subjective cognitive decline and the likelihood of having more subjective cognitive complaints over time.

Compared with once-daily bowel movements, having bowel movements every 3 or more days was associated with a greater likelihood of subjective cognitive decline (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.60-1.86).

These relationships were generally consistent across the three cohorts and subgroups.

“These results stress the importance of clinicians discussing gut health, especially constipation, with their older patients,” senior investigator Dong Wang, MD, ScD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in a conference statement.

“Interventions for preventing constipation and improving gut health include adopting healthy diets enriched with high-fiber and high-polyphenol foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; taking fiber supplementation; drinking plenty of water every day; and having regular physical activity,” Dr. Wang added.

The researchers also explored the role of the gut microbiome in the association between bowel movement frequency and cognitive function in a subgroup of 515 women and men.

They found that bowel movement frequency and subjective cognition were significantly associated with the overall variation of the gut microbiome (both P < .005) and specific microbial species.

“This research adds further evidence for a link between the microbiome and gastrointestinal function with cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said in an interview.
 

Interconnected systems

Commenting on the study in a conference statement, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “our body systems are all interconnected. When one system is malfunctioning, it impacts other systems. When that dysfunction isn’t addressed, it can create a waterfall of consequences for the rest of the body.”

Dr. Snyder cautioned, however, that “there are a lot of unanswered questions about the connection between the health of our digestive system and our long-term cognitive function. Answering these questions may uncover novel therapeutic and risk-reduction approaches for Alzheimer’s and other dementias.”

In an interview, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk, is evaluating the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis.

“We want to better understand how engaging in healthier habits can impact microorganisms in the gut and how changes in gut bacteria relate to brain health,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma, Dr. Wang, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Chronic constipation may be associated with worsening cognitive function, new data from three prospective cohort studies with more than 100,000 adults show.

Compared with individuals who have a bowel movement once daily, adults with constipation who have a bowel movement every 3 days or more had significantly worse cognition that was commensurate with an additional 3 years of chronological cognitive aging, the investigators found.

“We should watch for symptoms of abnormal intestinal function, especially constipation, in older individuals, as these symptoms may hint at a higher risk of cognitive decline in the future,” study investigator Chaoran Ma, MD, PhD, former research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and current assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Prevent constipation, improve brain health?

It’s estimated that 16% of the world’s population suffers from constipation. The problem is more common in older adults, owing to age-related factors such as a lack of dietary fiber and exercise and the use of constipating drugs to treat other medical conditions.

Chronic constipation – defined as having bowel movements every 3 days or more – has been associated with long-term health problems, such as inflammation, hormonal imbalances, anxiety, and depression.

However, few studies have investigated variations in intestinal motility and cognitive function.

“Our study provides first-of-its-kind evidence that examined a wide spectrum of bowel movement frequency, especially an analysis of the more frequent end, in relation to cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said.

The analysis involved data from 112,753 women and men from the Nurses’ Health Study (aged 30-55 years), the Nurses’ Health Study II (aged 25-42), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (aged 40-75).

Data on participants’ bowel movement frequency was collected between 2012 and 2013, and self-assessments of cognitive function were obtained from 2014 to 2017. A subgroup of 12,696 participants completed a standard neuropsychological test battery for objective cognitive assessment between 2014 and 2018.

The results show that bowel movement frequency was associated with overall objective cognitive function and learning and working memory in an inverse J-shape dose-response manner (both P for nonlinearity < .05).

Compared with adults who had one bowel movement daily, those who only had a bowel movement every 3 or more days had significantly worse cognition, equivalent to 3 years of additional aging (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7).

The researchers also observed similar J-shape dose-response relationships of bowel movement frequency with the odds of subjective cognitive decline and the likelihood of having more subjective cognitive complaints over time.

Compared with once-daily bowel movements, having bowel movements every 3 or more days was associated with a greater likelihood of subjective cognitive decline (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.60-1.86).

These relationships were generally consistent across the three cohorts and subgroups.

“These results stress the importance of clinicians discussing gut health, especially constipation, with their older patients,” senior investigator Dong Wang, MD, ScD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in a conference statement.

“Interventions for preventing constipation and improving gut health include adopting healthy diets enriched with high-fiber and high-polyphenol foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; taking fiber supplementation; drinking plenty of water every day; and having regular physical activity,” Dr. Wang added.

The researchers also explored the role of the gut microbiome in the association between bowel movement frequency and cognitive function in a subgroup of 515 women and men.

They found that bowel movement frequency and subjective cognition were significantly associated with the overall variation of the gut microbiome (both P < .005) and specific microbial species.

“This research adds further evidence for a link between the microbiome and gastrointestinal function with cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said in an interview.
 

Interconnected systems

Commenting on the study in a conference statement, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “our body systems are all interconnected. When one system is malfunctioning, it impacts other systems. When that dysfunction isn’t addressed, it can create a waterfall of consequences for the rest of the body.”

Dr. Snyder cautioned, however, that “there are a lot of unanswered questions about the connection between the health of our digestive system and our long-term cognitive function. Answering these questions may uncover novel therapeutic and risk-reduction approaches for Alzheimer’s and other dementias.”

In an interview, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk, is evaluating the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis.

“We want to better understand how engaging in healthier habits can impact microorganisms in the gut and how changes in gut bacteria relate to brain health,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma, Dr. Wang, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Chronic constipation may be associated with worsening cognitive function, new data from three prospective cohort studies with more than 100,000 adults show.

Compared with individuals who have a bowel movement once daily, adults with constipation who have a bowel movement every 3 days or more had significantly worse cognition that was commensurate with an additional 3 years of chronological cognitive aging, the investigators found.

“We should watch for symptoms of abnormal intestinal function, especially constipation, in older individuals, as these symptoms may hint at a higher risk of cognitive decline in the future,” study investigator Chaoran Ma, MD, PhD, former research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and current assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Prevent constipation, improve brain health?

It’s estimated that 16% of the world’s population suffers from constipation. The problem is more common in older adults, owing to age-related factors such as a lack of dietary fiber and exercise and the use of constipating drugs to treat other medical conditions.

Chronic constipation – defined as having bowel movements every 3 days or more – has been associated with long-term health problems, such as inflammation, hormonal imbalances, anxiety, and depression.

However, few studies have investigated variations in intestinal motility and cognitive function.

“Our study provides first-of-its-kind evidence that examined a wide spectrum of bowel movement frequency, especially an analysis of the more frequent end, in relation to cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said.

The analysis involved data from 112,753 women and men from the Nurses’ Health Study (aged 30-55 years), the Nurses’ Health Study II (aged 25-42), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (aged 40-75).

Data on participants’ bowel movement frequency was collected between 2012 and 2013, and self-assessments of cognitive function were obtained from 2014 to 2017. A subgroup of 12,696 participants completed a standard neuropsychological test battery for objective cognitive assessment between 2014 and 2018.

The results show that bowel movement frequency was associated with overall objective cognitive function and learning and working memory in an inverse J-shape dose-response manner (both P for nonlinearity < .05).

Compared with adults who had one bowel movement daily, those who only had a bowel movement every 3 or more days had significantly worse cognition, equivalent to 3 years of additional aging (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7).

The researchers also observed similar J-shape dose-response relationships of bowel movement frequency with the odds of subjective cognitive decline and the likelihood of having more subjective cognitive complaints over time.

Compared with once-daily bowel movements, having bowel movements every 3 or more days was associated with a greater likelihood of subjective cognitive decline (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.60-1.86).

These relationships were generally consistent across the three cohorts and subgroups.

“These results stress the importance of clinicians discussing gut health, especially constipation, with their older patients,” senior investigator Dong Wang, MD, ScD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in a conference statement.

“Interventions for preventing constipation and improving gut health include adopting healthy diets enriched with high-fiber and high-polyphenol foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; taking fiber supplementation; drinking plenty of water every day; and having regular physical activity,” Dr. Wang added.

The researchers also explored the role of the gut microbiome in the association between bowel movement frequency and cognitive function in a subgroup of 515 women and men.

They found that bowel movement frequency and subjective cognition were significantly associated with the overall variation of the gut microbiome (both P < .005) and specific microbial species.

“This research adds further evidence for a link between the microbiome and gastrointestinal function with cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said in an interview.
 

Interconnected systems

Commenting on the study in a conference statement, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “our body systems are all interconnected. When one system is malfunctioning, it impacts other systems. When that dysfunction isn’t addressed, it can create a waterfall of consequences for the rest of the body.”

Dr. Snyder cautioned, however, that “there are a lot of unanswered questions about the connection between the health of our digestive system and our long-term cognitive function. Answering these questions may uncover novel therapeutic and risk-reduction approaches for Alzheimer’s and other dementias.”

In an interview, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk, is evaluating the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis.

“We want to better understand how engaging in healthier habits can impact microorganisms in the gut and how changes in gut bacteria relate to brain health,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma, Dr. Wang, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.

CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.

CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.

In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.

Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.

I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.

DiabetesWisePro  has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.

Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:

• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).

• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.

The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.

Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.

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

Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.

CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.

CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.

In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.

Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.

I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.

DiabetesWisePro  has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.

Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:

• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).

• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.

The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.

Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.

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

Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.

CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.

CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.

In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.

Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.

I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.

DiabetesWisePro  has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.

Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:

• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).

• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.

The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.

Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has again determined that current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening for lipid disorders among asymptomatic children and patients aged 20 years or younger.

The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.

The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.

“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”

The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.

The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.

Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.

In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.

“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.

They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.

Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.

Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.

“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.

One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has again determined that current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening for lipid disorders among asymptomatic children and patients aged 20 years or younger.

The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.

The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.

“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”

The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.

The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.

Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.

In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.

“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.

They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.

Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.

Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.

“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.

One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has again determined that current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening for lipid disorders among asymptomatic children and patients aged 20 years or younger.

The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.

The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.

“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”

The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.

The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.

Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.

In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.

“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.

They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.

Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.

Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.

“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.

One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.

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

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

We are all searching for happiness. But how do we achieve it? What are its greatest determinants?

The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the most comprehensive study ever conducted, as it followed its participants for their entire adult lives. The study was started in Boston in 1938 and has already covered three generations: grandparents, parents, and children, who are now considered “baby boomers.” It analyzed more than 2,000 people throughout 85 years of longitudinal study.

In January, Robert J. Waldinger, MD, the current director of this incredible study, published the book The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, coauthored with the study’s associate director, Marc Schulz, PhD.

By following this large population for more than 8 decades, the study uncovered the factors most correlated with well-being and happiness. Here, I have summarized some of the authors’ main concepts.
 

Most important factors

The study’s happiest participants had two major factors in common throughout its 85 years: Taking care of their health and building loving relationships with others.

It seems obvious that being in good health is essential to live well. However, to some surprise, researchers determined that good relationships were the most significant predictor of health and happiness during aging. Other authors have confirmed this finding, and research has sought to analyze the physiological mechanisms associated with this benefit.
 

Professional success insufficient

Professional success on its own does not guarantee happiness, even though it may be gratifying. The study revealed that those who were happiest were not isolated. In fact, the happiest people valued and fostered relationships. Levels of education and cultural awareness, which tend to be higher among those with higher salaries, were also important factors for adopting healthy habits (promoted more often as of the 1960s) and for better access to health care.

Social skills

Loneliness is increasingly common and creates challenges when dealing with stressful situations. It is essential to have someone with whom we can vent. Therefore, Dr. Waldinger recommends assessing how to foster, strengthen, and broaden relationships. He calls this maintaining social connections and, just as with physical fitness, it also requires constant practice. Friendships and relationships need regular commitment to keep them from fizzling out. A simple telephone call can help. Participating in activities that bring joy and encourage camaraderie, such as sports, hobbies, and volunteer work, may broaden the relationship network.

Happiness not constant

Social media almost always shows the positive side of people’s lives and suggests that everyone lives worry-free. However, the truth is that no one’s life is free of difficulties and challenges. Social skills contribute to resilience.

It is never too late for a turnaround and for people to change their lives through new relationships and experiences. Those who think they know everything about life are very mistaken. The study showed that good things happened to those who had given up on changing their situation, and good news appeared when they least expected it.

This study highlights the importance of having social skills and always cultivating our relationships to help us become healthier, overcome challenging moments, and achieve the happiness that we all desire.

We finally have robust evidence-based data to use when speaking on happiness.

Dr. Wajngarten is professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We are all searching for happiness. But how do we achieve it? What are its greatest determinants?

The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the most comprehensive study ever conducted, as it followed its participants for their entire adult lives. The study was started in Boston in 1938 and has already covered three generations: grandparents, parents, and children, who are now considered “baby boomers.” It analyzed more than 2,000 people throughout 85 years of longitudinal study.

In January, Robert J. Waldinger, MD, the current director of this incredible study, published the book The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, coauthored with the study’s associate director, Marc Schulz, PhD.

By following this large population for more than 8 decades, the study uncovered the factors most correlated with well-being and happiness. Here, I have summarized some of the authors’ main concepts.
 

Most important factors

The study’s happiest participants had two major factors in common throughout its 85 years: Taking care of their health and building loving relationships with others.

It seems obvious that being in good health is essential to live well. However, to some surprise, researchers determined that good relationships were the most significant predictor of health and happiness during aging. Other authors have confirmed this finding, and research has sought to analyze the physiological mechanisms associated with this benefit.
 

Professional success insufficient

Professional success on its own does not guarantee happiness, even though it may be gratifying. The study revealed that those who were happiest were not isolated. In fact, the happiest people valued and fostered relationships. Levels of education and cultural awareness, which tend to be higher among those with higher salaries, were also important factors for adopting healthy habits (promoted more often as of the 1960s) and for better access to health care.

Social skills

Loneliness is increasingly common and creates challenges when dealing with stressful situations. It is essential to have someone with whom we can vent. Therefore, Dr. Waldinger recommends assessing how to foster, strengthen, and broaden relationships. He calls this maintaining social connections and, just as with physical fitness, it also requires constant practice. Friendships and relationships need regular commitment to keep them from fizzling out. A simple telephone call can help. Participating in activities that bring joy and encourage camaraderie, such as sports, hobbies, and volunteer work, may broaden the relationship network.

Happiness not constant

Social media almost always shows the positive side of people’s lives and suggests that everyone lives worry-free. However, the truth is that no one’s life is free of difficulties and challenges. Social skills contribute to resilience.

It is never too late for a turnaround and for people to change their lives through new relationships and experiences. Those who think they know everything about life are very mistaken. The study showed that good things happened to those who had given up on changing their situation, and good news appeared when they least expected it.

This study highlights the importance of having social skills and always cultivating our relationships to help us become healthier, overcome challenging moments, and achieve the happiness that we all desire.

We finally have robust evidence-based data to use when speaking on happiness.

Dr. Wajngarten is professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We are all searching for happiness. But how do we achieve it? What are its greatest determinants?

The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the most comprehensive study ever conducted, as it followed its participants for their entire adult lives. The study was started in Boston in 1938 and has already covered three generations: grandparents, parents, and children, who are now considered “baby boomers.” It analyzed more than 2,000 people throughout 85 years of longitudinal study.

In January, Robert J. Waldinger, MD, the current director of this incredible study, published the book The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, coauthored with the study’s associate director, Marc Schulz, PhD.

By following this large population for more than 8 decades, the study uncovered the factors most correlated with well-being and happiness. Here, I have summarized some of the authors’ main concepts.
 

Most important factors

The study’s happiest participants had two major factors in common throughout its 85 years: Taking care of their health and building loving relationships with others.

It seems obvious that being in good health is essential to live well. However, to some surprise, researchers determined that good relationships were the most significant predictor of health and happiness during aging. Other authors have confirmed this finding, and research has sought to analyze the physiological mechanisms associated with this benefit.
 

Professional success insufficient

Professional success on its own does not guarantee happiness, even though it may be gratifying. The study revealed that those who were happiest were not isolated. In fact, the happiest people valued and fostered relationships. Levels of education and cultural awareness, which tend to be higher among those with higher salaries, were also important factors for adopting healthy habits (promoted more often as of the 1960s) and for better access to health care.

Social skills

Loneliness is increasingly common and creates challenges when dealing with stressful situations. It is essential to have someone with whom we can vent. Therefore, Dr. Waldinger recommends assessing how to foster, strengthen, and broaden relationships. He calls this maintaining social connections and, just as with physical fitness, it also requires constant practice. Friendships and relationships need regular commitment to keep them from fizzling out. A simple telephone call can help. Participating in activities that bring joy and encourage camaraderie, such as sports, hobbies, and volunteer work, may broaden the relationship network.

Happiness not constant

Social media almost always shows the positive side of people’s lives and suggests that everyone lives worry-free. However, the truth is that no one’s life is free of difficulties and challenges. Social skills contribute to resilience.

It is never too late for a turnaround and for people to change their lives through new relationships and experiences. Those who think they know everything about life are very mistaken. The study showed that good things happened to those who had given up on changing their situation, and good news appeared when they least expected it.

This study highlights the importance of having social skills and always cultivating our relationships to help us become healthier, overcome challenging moments, and achieve the happiness that we all desire.

We finally have robust evidence-based data to use when speaking on happiness.

Dr. Wajngarten is professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

Recently, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide has changed the obesity treatment landscape. This and other similar medications approaching the market are in high demand because of their ease of use, effectiveness, and lack of interactions with other medications.

Semaglutide is a weekly subcutaneous injection approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle change. It elicits an average weight loss of 15%-18% from baseline in adults with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30) in a period of 52-68 weeks (Wilding et al; Rubino et al). Liraglutide is a daily GLP-1 agonist, which is FDA approved for treatment of overweight, with an average weight loss of 8% from treatment start.

Though GLP-1 agonists are very effective for weight loss, questions about side effects have arisen. And now, there are also concerns surrounding GLP-1 agonist–induced rapid weight loss and its resulting impact on muscle mass.

Current modalities of weight loss don’t specifically target fat mass (FM), so it is expected that, to a degree, fat-free mass (FFM), including muscle mass, will also be lost along with fat mass.

Loss of muscle mass is associated with an increased risk for lower bone density, fatigue, injuries, and decreased strength. In addition, sarcopenic obesity, a combination of high body fat percentage and low skeletal muscle mass, is concerning in patients older than 65 years and/or postmenopausal patients. Because GLP-1 agonists cause more rapid and sustainable weight loss, compared with intensive behavioral lifestyle therapy, there has been more media attention recently about possible muscle mass loss with GLP-1–agonist use.

However, proper well-rounded approaches to obesity treatment can mitigate the issue of muscle mass loss even when rapid weight loss occurs. When weight loss is achieved with very-low-calorie dietary changes alone (without exercise), it is also associated with significant reductions in lean muscle mass; however, incorporating exercise, preferably resistance training, can mitigate the muscle mass loss. The muscle-preserving effect of exercise is especially prominent in older populations where it is needed most and should be incorporated (Armanento-Villareal et al.; Winter et al.; Batsis and Zagaria; Mason et al.).

Furthermore, studies in rat models demonstrate liraglutide induces myogenesis in myoblasts and protects against muscular atrophy. In human studies, GLP-1 infusion was associated with an improved skeletal and cardiac muscle microvasculature, suggesting that GLP-1 agonists may have some positive effects on the muscle. A 2020 systematic review examined the effect of gradual vs. rapid weight loss and demonstrated no significant difference in muscle loss between the rapid weight-loss group and gradual weight-loss group. Even after gastric bypass surgery, most of the muscle mass loss occurred during the first year, when weight loss is happening. However, after the first year, skeletal muscle was maintained even without introducing additional dietary or exercise interventions.

Age, although a consideration, should not be a discriminating factor against treating obesity. Sarcopenic obesity is a serious risk especially in patients aged 65 years or older, but GLP-1–agonist therapy can be beneficial to prevent muscle atrophy and increase blood flow to skeletal and cardiac muscle. In addition, patients must be encouraged to maintain an appropriate dietary and exercise regimen to treat their obesity. Management of obesity is complex and multifaceted, and patients should understand their responsibility to follow clinician recommendations during this journey to decrease the associated side effects.

Overall, with any level of weight loss achieved with current strategies, a certain amount of muscle mass loss is expected. All efforts to actively preserve muscle mass can prevent too much muscle loss.

Therefore, providers prescribing medications like GLP-1 agonists to treat obesity must also counsel patients about incorporating aerobic exercise and resistance training as part of the treatment plan as well as ensuring they eat a high-protein diet. Generally, resistance training is preferred over aerobic exercise for muscle mass preservation and increased strength, but studies also demonstrate benefit with aerobic exercise.

In the first few visits of initiating obesity treatment, patients should be encouraged to start to incorporate light physical activity as tolerable while starting to make dietary changes to include at least 0.8g/kg/day of protein (Fappi et al.). These initial visits are also an important opportunity for clinicians to ingrain the importance of exercise as part of healthy weight loss. At every visit, physical activity level should be assessed.

Dr. Ahn is a clinical fellow in obesity medicine, Weight Management Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Singhal is an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director, Pediatric Program, MGH Weight Center, Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Singhal reported that his spouse consults with AstraZeneca, Dilachi Pharma, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Novartis.

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

Recently, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide has changed the obesity treatment landscape. This and other similar medications approaching the market are in high demand because of their ease of use, effectiveness, and lack of interactions with other medications.

Semaglutide is a weekly subcutaneous injection approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle change. It elicits an average weight loss of 15%-18% from baseline in adults with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30) in a period of 52-68 weeks (Wilding et al; Rubino et al). Liraglutide is a daily GLP-1 agonist, which is FDA approved for treatment of overweight, with an average weight loss of 8% from treatment start.

Though GLP-1 agonists are very effective for weight loss, questions about side effects have arisen. And now, there are also concerns surrounding GLP-1 agonist–induced rapid weight loss and its resulting impact on muscle mass.

Current modalities of weight loss don’t specifically target fat mass (FM), so it is expected that, to a degree, fat-free mass (FFM), including muscle mass, will also be lost along with fat mass.

Loss of muscle mass is associated with an increased risk for lower bone density, fatigue, injuries, and decreased strength. In addition, sarcopenic obesity, a combination of high body fat percentage and low skeletal muscle mass, is concerning in patients older than 65 years and/or postmenopausal patients. Because GLP-1 agonists cause more rapid and sustainable weight loss, compared with intensive behavioral lifestyle therapy, there has been more media attention recently about possible muscle mass loss with GLP-1–agonist use.

However, proper well-rounded approaches to obesity treatment can mitigate the issue of muscle mass loss even when rapid weight loss occurs. When weight loss is achieved with very-low-calorie dietary changes alone (without exercise), it is also associated with significant reductions in lean muscle mass; however, incorporating exercise, preferably resistance training, can mitigate the muscle mass loss. The muscle-preserving effect of exercise is especially prominent in older populations where it is needed most and should be incorporated (Armanento-Villareal et al.; Winter et al.; Batsis and Zagaria; Mason et al.).

Furthermore, studies in rat models demonstrate liraglutide induces myogenesis in myoblasts and protects against muscular atrophy. In human studies, GLP-1 infusion was associated with an improved skeletal and cardiac muscle microvasculature, suggesting that GLP-1 agonists may have some positive effects on the muscle. A 2020 systematic review examined the effect of gradual vs. rapid weight loss and demonstrated no significant difference in muscle loss between the rapid weight-loss group and gradual weight-loss group. Even after gastric bypass surgery, most of the muscle mass loss occurred during the first year, when weight loss is happening. However, after the first year, skeletal muscle was maintained even without introducing additional dietary or exercise interventions.

Age, although a consideration, should not be a discriminating factor against treating obesity. Sarcopenic obesity is a serious risk especially in patients aged 65 years or older, but GLP-1–agonist therapy can be beneficial to prevent muscle atrophy and increase blood flow to skeletal and cardiac muscle. In addition, patients must be encouraged to maintain an appropriate dietary and exercise regimen to treat their obesity. Management of obesity is complex and multifaceted, and patients should understand their responsibility to follow clinician recommendations during this journey to decrease the associated side effects.

Overall, with any level of weight loss achieved with current strategies, a certain amount of muscle mass loss is expected. All efforts to actively preserve muscle mass can prevent too much muscle loss.

Therefore, providers prescribing medications like GLP-1 agonists to treat obesity must also counsel patients about incorporating aerobic exercise and resistance training as part of the treatment plan as well as ensuring they eat a high-protein diet. Generally, resistance training is preferred over aerobic exercise for muscle mass preservation and increased strength, but studies also demonstrate benefit with aerobic exercise.

In the first few visits of initiating obesity treatment, patients should be encouraged to start to incorporate light physical activity as tolerable while starting to make dietary changes to include at least 0.8g/kg/day of protein (Fappi et al.). These initial visits are also an important opportunity for clinicians to ingrain the importance of exercise as part of healthy weight loss. At every visit, physical activity level should be assessed.

Dr. Ahn is a clinical fellow in obesity medicine, Weight Management Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Singhal is an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director, Pediatric Program, MGH Weight Center, Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Singhal reported that his spouse consults with AstraZeneca, Dilachi Pharma, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Novartis.

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

Recently, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide has changed the obesity treatment landscape. This and other similar medications approaching the market are in high demand because of their ease of use, effectiveness, and lack of interactions with other medications.

Semaglutide is a weekly subcutaneous injection approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle change. It elicits an average weight loss of 15%-18% from baseline in adults with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30) in a period of 52-68 weeks (Wilding et al; Rubino et al). Liraglutide is a daily GLP-1 agonist, which is FDA approved for treatment of overweight, with an average weight loss of 8% from treatment start.

Though GLP-1 agonists are very effective for weight loss, questions about side effects have arisen. And now, there are also concerns surrounding GLP-1 agonist–induced rapid weight loss and its resulting impact on muscle mass.

Current modalities of weight loss don’t specifically target fat mass (FM), so it is expected that, to a degree, fat-free mass (FFM), including muscle mass, will also be lost along with fat mass.

Loss of muscle mass is associated with an increased risk for lower bone density, fatigue, injuries, and decreased strength. In addition, sarcopenic obesity, a combination of high body fat percentage and low skeletal muscle mass, is concerning in patients older than 65 years and/or postmenopausal patients. Because GLP-1 agonists cause more rapid and sustainable weight loss, compared with intensive behavioral lifestyle therapy, there has been more media attention recently about possible muscle mass loss with GLP-1–agonist use.

However, proper well-rounded approaches to obesity treatment can mitigate the issue of muscle mass loss even when rapid weight loss occurs. When weight loss is achieved with very-low-calorie dietary changes alone (without exercise), it is also associated with significant reductions in lean muscle mass; however, incorporating exercise, preferably resistance training, can mitigate the muscle mass loss. The muscle-preserving effect of exercise is especially prominent in older populations where it is needed most and should be incorporated (Armanento-Villareal et al.; Winter et al.; Batsis and Zagaria; Mason et al.).

Furthermore, studies in rat models demonstrate liraglutide induces myogenesis in myoblasts and protects against muscular atrophy. In human studies, GLP-1 infusion was associated with an improved skeletal and cardiac muscle microvasculature, suggesting that GLP-1 agonists may have some positive effects on the muscle. A 2020 systematic review examined the effect of gradual vs. rapid weight loss and demonstrated no significant difference in muscle loss between the rapid weight-loss group and gradual weight-loss group. Even after gastric bypass surgery, most of the muscle mass loss occurred during the first year, when weight loss is happening. However, after the first year, skeletal muscle was maintained even without introducing additional dietary or exercise interventions.

Age, although a consideration, should not be a discriminating factor against treating obesity. Sarcopenic obesity is a serious risk especially in patients aged 65 years or older, but GLP-1–agonist therapy can be beneficial to prevent muscle atrophy and increase blood flow to skeletal and cardiac muscle. In addition, patients must be encouraged to maintain an appropriate dietary and exercise regimen to treat their obesity. Management of obesity is complex and multifaceted, and patients should understand their responsibility to follow clinician recommendations during this journey to decrease the associated side effects.

Overall, with any level of weight loss achieved with current strategies, a certain amount of muscle mass loss is expected. All efforts to actively preserve muscle mass can prevent too much muscle loss.

Therefore, providers prescribing medications like GLP-1 agonists to treat obesity must also counsel patients about incorporating aerobic exercise and resistance training as part of the treatment plan as well as ensuring they eat a high-protein diet. Generally, resistance training is preferred over aerobic exercise for muscle mass preservation and increased strength, but studies also demonstrate benefit with aerobic exercise.

In the first few visits of initiating obesity treatment, patients should be encouraged to start to incorporate light physical activity as tolerable while starting to make dietary changes to include at least 0.8g/kg/day of protein (Fappi et al.). These initial visits are also an important opportunity for clinicians to ingrain the importance of exercise as part of healthy weight loss. At every visit, physical activity level should be assessed.

Dr. Ahn is a clinical fellow in obesity medicine, Weight Management Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Dr. Singhal is an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director, Pediatric Program, MGH Weight Center, Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Singhal reported that his spouse consults with AstraZeneca, Dilachi Pharma, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Novartis.

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

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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