Tag: CVD

Understanding Vascular Risks in People with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex neurological condition that affects the central nervous system. While much of the focus on MS is often on the symptoms related to the nervous system, recent research has shed light on another important aspect: the increased risk of vascular diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension, in people living with MS (PwMS). Let’s take a closer look at what this means and how it impacts overall health based on the findings of a recent paper from my team published in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

What the Research Shows

A large study conducted between 1987 and 2018 looked at the health records of over 12,000 people with MS and compared them with over 70,000 individuals without MS. The findings were significant:

  • Increased Risk of Diabetes: People living with MS have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes after being diagnosed with MS. Over 10 years, the incidence rate of diabetes was notably higher in people with MS compared to those without. Women with MS, in particular, showed an 18% higher rate of developing diabetes than the general population.
  • Hypertension Management: People living with MS were more likely to start treatments for hypertension (high blood pressure) compared to individuals without MS. Encouragingly, those with MS who started treatment for hypertension were also more likely to meet blood pressure management targets, as set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

However, despite better management, the overall burden of vascular diseases in people living with MS  remains higher than in the general population.

Why Is This Important?

People living with MS are already dealing with a condition that affects mobility, cognitive function, and quality of life. Adding the risk of cardiovascular diseases like diabetes and hypertension can worsen these issues, as vascular health plays a key role in overall well-being. Managing vascular risk factors is essential because conditions like high blood pressure or diabetes can lead to more frequent MS relapses, quicker disability progression, and lower quality of life.

Addressing the Risks

The good news from the study is that people living with MS are more likely to receive treatment for vascular conditions post-diagnosis. This reflects a positive shift in the healthcare approach to managing these risks. But there is still much work to be done. Vascular disease management in people with MS needs to be tailored to their specific needs, potentially requiring more stringent treatment targets to prevent further health complications.

What You Can Do

If you or someone you care about is living with MS, it’s essential to keep an eye on vascular health. Here are some practical steps:

  1. Regular Check-Ups: Make sure to have regular check-ups with your healthcare provider to monitor blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and cholesterol.
  2. Healthy Lifestyle Choices: Focus on a healthy diet, regular physical activity, and avoiding smoking, all of which can reduce the risk of vascular diseases.
  3. Medication Management: If you’re prescribed medications for conditions like hypertension or diabetes, make sure to follow the treatment plan closely and keep an open line of communication with your doctor about any side effects or concerns.
  4. Stay Informed: Understanding how MS interacts with other health conditions helps you stay ahead. Don’t hesitate to ask your healthcare provider about any concerns related to cardiovascular health.

Final Thoughts

The relationship between MS and vascular diseases is complex, but this research highlights the importance of proactive care. By focusing on managing vascular risk factors, people living with MS  can work toward reducing the additional health burdens that come with the disease, improving their long-term health and quality of life.

This study reminds us that while MS presents many challenges, there are steps we can take to mitigate its impacts, especially when it comes to vascular health. Stay engaged with your healthcare team and prioritise comprehensive care to address both neurological and cardiovascular health.

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Disease: Looking Critically at Absolute Risk Reduction, Cost-Effectiveness and Safety

The recent media coverage on semaglutide’s potential in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has raised hopes and questions alike. While the drug has shown promise in reducing cardiovascular risk, it’s crucial to look beyond the relative risk reduction figures often highlighted in the news.

To truly understand the impact of semaglutide, we must delve into the absolute risk reduction, cost-effectiveness, and long-term safety data. While the reported relative risk reduction is significant, it’s crucial to consider the absolute risk reduction to accurately assess the semaglutide’s effectiveness and calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one adverse CVD event.

These principles can be used to look at how any drug should be used in healthcare system’s such as the UK’s NHS. What are the key considerations?

Relative Risk Reduction (RRR): Indicates the percentage reduction in risk between the treatment group and the control group.

Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR): Measures the actual difference in event rates between the treatment and control groups, offering a clearer view of the treatment’s real-world impact.

Number Needed to Treat (NNT): NNT is derived from the ARR and indicates how many patients need to be treated to prevent one adverse event. It is calculated as NNT = 1/ARR.

Relative risk reduction (RRR), a commonly reported statistic in research articles and press releases, can sometimes exaggerate a drug’s benefits. Absolute risk reduction (ARR), on the other hand, provides a clearer picture of the actual difference in risk between those taking the medication and those who are not. This is crucial because a seemingly impressive RRR might translate to a small ARR, especially in low-risk populations.

The number needed to treat (NNT), derived from the ARR, tells us how many patients need to be treated to prevent one adverse event. A lower NNT indicates a more effective treatment. Understanding the NNT in different risk groups is essential for making informed decisions about treatment and resource allocation.

Importance in Different Risk Populations:

High-risk patients often show more substantial absolute benefits from treatments. In lower-risk patients, the ARR might be smaller, leading to a larger NNT, which influences cost-effectiveness and decisions about resource allocation.

Cost-Effectiveness: Assessing the economic viability of semaglutide involves comparing the cost of the drug against the healthcare savings from prevented CVD events. While semaglutide shows potential in CVD prevention, its cost-effectiveness is a significant factor, particularly for healthcare systems with limited budgets. Thorough health economics studies are needed to weigh the drug’s cost against the potential savings from prevented CVD events. This will help determine if the benefits justify the expense, especially for widespread use.

Hence, health economics studies are essential to determine if the benefits justify the expense, particularly in public health systems with budget constraints.

Side Effects and Safety Profile: Understanding the adverse effects of semaglutide is critical. Long-term safety data, as well as information on the severity and frequency of side effects, must be evaluated. Balancing the benefits of CVD risk reduction against potential harms from side effects is necessary for informed decision-making.

Semaglutide’s long-term safety profile is still under investigation. While initial studies are promising, continued monitoring is crucial to identify any potential side effects or risks associated with prolonged use. Balancing the benefits of CVD risk reduction against potential harms is essential for responsible decision-making.

The Road Ahead: Research and Evidence

To fully harness the potential of semaglutide in CVD management, we need more comprehensive data. This includes detailed reporting of ARR in diverse patient populations, robust cost-effectiveness analyses in various healthcare settings, and long-term studies to monitor safety and efficacy. While semaglutide shows promise in the treatment of CVD, more comprehensive data is required to fully understand its impact, particularly in areas such as the ARR in different patient populations (such as those at low risk of CVD)to calculate precise NNT values.

Conclusion: Semaglutide shows promise as a valuable tool in the fight against cardiovascular disease. However, it is essential to maintain a critical eye. By focusing on metrics such as absolute risk reduction, cost-effectiveness, and long-term safety data, we can make informed decisions that prioritise patient well-being and responsible resource allocation. As research continues, we will gain a clearer understanding of semaglutide’s role in CVD prevention and treatment, paving the way for its appropriate use by healthcare systems across the world.