User login
Dr. John Mann discusses suicide prevention
Survival at ‘overweight’ BMI surpasses ‘normal’
PARIS – Middle-aged adults with a body mass index of 25-29 kg/m2 had a significantly better adjusted survival during a median follow-up of nearly 10 years than did people with a “normal” body mass index of 20-24 kg/m2 in a worldwide study of more than 140,000. This finding suggests the current, widely accepted definition of normal body mass index is wrong.*
The new findings suggest that the current definition of a “healthy” body mass index (BMI) “should be re-evaluated,” Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, said at the annual Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The analysis also identified a BMI specifically of 27 kg/m2 as associated with optimal survival among both women and men, “clearly outside the range of 20 to less than 25 kg/m2 that is considered normal,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Dr. Leong cited three potential explanations for why the new study identified optimal survival with a BMI of 25 to less than 30 kg/m2 among people who were 35-70 years old when they entered the study and were followed for a median of 9.5 years: The current study collected data and adjusted the results using a wider range of potential confounders than in prior studies, the data reflect the impact of contemporary interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease illness and death while past studies relied on data from earlier times when less cardiovascular disease protection occurred, and the current study included people from lower-income countries, although the finding is just as applicable to people who live in high-income countries, who were also included in the study population, noted Salim Yusuf, MBBS, principal investigator for the study.
A BMI of 20-24 kg/m2 “is actually low and harmful,” noted Dr. Yusuf in an interview. Despite recent data consistently showing better survival among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m2, panels that have recently written weight guidelines are “ossified” and “refuse to accept” the implications of these findings, said Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine at McMaster and executive director of the Population Health Research Institute.
The results of the analyses that Dr. Leong reported also showed that BMI paled as a prognosticator for survival when compared with two other assessments of weight: waist/hip ratio, and even more powerful prognostically, a novel measure developed for this analysis that calculates the ratio of hand-grip strength/body weight. Waist/hip ratio adds the dimension of the location of body fat rather than just the amount, and the ratio of grip strength/body weight assesses the contribution of muscle mass to overall weight, noted Dr. Leong. He reported an optimal waist/hip ratio for survival of 0.83 in women and 0.93 in men, and an optimal strength/weight ratio of 0.42 in women and 0.50 in men. This means that a man whose hand-grip strength (measured in kg) is half of the person’s body weight has the best prospect for survival.
The study used data collected in PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology Study) on 142,410 people aged 35-70 years from any one of four high-income countries, 12 middle-income countries, and five low-income countries. The study excluded people who had at baseline known coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, or cancer, and the adjusted analysis controlled for age, sex, region, education, activity, alcohol and tobacco use, and the baseline prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. During follow-up, 9,712 of these people died.
The researchers saw a nadir for mortality among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m2 for both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. In addition, the link between total mortality and BMI was strongest in the subgroup of people on one or more treatments aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease, while it essentially disappeared among people not receiving any cardiovascular disease preventive measures, highlighting that the relationship now identified depends on a context of overall cardiovascular disease risk reduction, Dr. Leong said. The results also showed a very clear, direct, linear relationship between higher BMI and both the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as increased all-cause and noncardiovascular mortality among people with a BMI of less than 20 kg/m2.
Dr. Yusuf discussed the results of the analysis in a video interview.
The PURE study has received partial funding from unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Leong has been an advisor to Ferring Pharmaceuticals and has been a speaker on behalf of Janssen. Dr. Yusuf had no disclosures.
This story was updated 9/19/2019.
PARIS – Middle-aged adults with a body mass index of 25-29 kg/m2 had a significantly better adjusted survival during a median follow-up of nearly 10 years than did people with a “normal” body mass index of 20-24 kg/m2 in a worldwide study of more than 140,000. This finding suggests the current, widely accepted definition of normal body mass index is wrong.*
The new findings suggest that the current definition of a “healthy” body mass index (BMI) “should be re-evaluated,” Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, said at the annual Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The analysis also identified a BMI specifically of 27 kg/m2 as associated with optimal survival among both women and men, “clearly outside the range of 20 to less than 25 kg/m2 that is considered normal,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Dr. Leong cited three potential explanations for why the new study identified optimal survival with a BMI of 25 to less than 30 kg/m2 among people who were 35-70 years old when they entered the study and were followed for a median of 9.5 years: The current study collected data and adjusted the results using a wider range of potential confounders than in prior studies, the data reflect the impact of contemporary interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease illness and death while past studies relied on data from earlier times when less cardiovascular disease protection occurred, and the current study included people from lower-income countries, although the finding is just as applicable to people who live in high-income countries, who were also included in the study population, noted Salim Yusuf, MBBS, principal investigator for the study.
A BMI of 20-24 kg/m2 “is actually low and harmful,” noted Dr. Yusuf in an interview. Despite recent data consistently showing better survival among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m2, panels that have recently written weight guidelines are “ossified” and “refuse to accept” the implications of these findings, said Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine at McMaster and executive director of the Population Health Research Institute.
The results of the analyses that Dr. Leong reported also showed that BMI paled as a prognosticator for survival when compared with two other assessments of weight: waist/hip ratio, and even more powerful prognostically, a novel measure developed for this analysis that calculates the ratio of hand-grip strength/body weight. Waist/hip ratio adds the dimension of the location of body fat rather than just the amount, and the ratio of grip strength/body weight assesses the contribution of muscle mass to overall weight, noted Dr. Leong. He reported an optimal waist/hip ratio for survival of 0.83 in women and 0.93 in men, and an optimal strength/weight ratio of 0.42 in women and 0.50 in men. This means that a man whose hand-grip strength (measured in kg) is half of the person’s body weight has the best prospect for survival.
The study used data collected in PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology Study) on 142,410 people aged 35-70 years from any one of four high-income countries, 12 middle-income countries, and five low-income countries. The study excluded people who had at baseline known coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, or cancer, and the adjusted analysis controlled for age, sex, region, education, activity, alcohol and tobacco use, and the baseline prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. During follow-up, 9,712 of these people died.
The researchers saw a nadir for mortality among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m2 for both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. In addition, the link between total mortality and BMI was strongest in the subgroup of people on one or more treatments aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease, while it essentially disappeared among people not receiving any cardiovascular disease preventive measures, highlighting that the relationship now identified depends on a context of overall cardiovascular disease risk reduction, Dr. Leong said. The results also showed a very clear, direct, linear relationship between higher BMI and both the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as increased all-cause and noncardiovascular mortality among people with a BMI of less than 20 kg/m2.
Dr. Yusuf discussed the results of the analysis in a video interview.
The PURE study has received partial funding from unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Leong has been an advisor to Ferring Pharmaceuticals and has been a speaker on behalf of Janssen. Dr. Yusuf had no disclosures.
This story was updated 9/19/2019.
PARIS – Middle-aged adults with a body mass index of 25-29 kg/m2 had a significantly better adjusted survival during a median follow-up of nearly 10 years than did people with a “normal” body mass index of 20-24 kg/m2 in a worldwide study of more than 140,000. This finding suggests the current, widely accepted definition of normal body mass index is wrong.*
The new findings suggest that the current definition of a “healthy” body mass index (BMI) “should be re-evaluated,” Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, said at the annual Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The analysis also identified a BMI specifically of 27 kg/m2 as associated with optimal survival among both women and men, “clearly outside the range of 20 to less than 25 kg/m2 that is considered normal,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Dr. Leong cited three potential explanations for why the new study identified optimal survival with a BMI of 25 to less than 30 kg/m2 among people who were 35-70 years old when they entered the study and were followed for a median of 9.5 years: The current study collected data and adjusted the results using a wider range of potential confounders than in prior studies, the data reflect the impact of contemporary interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease illness and death while past studies relied on data from earlier times when less cardiovascular disease protection occurred, and the current study included people from lower-income countries, although the finding is just as applicable to people who live in high-income countries, who were also included in the study population, noted Salim Yusuf, MBBS, principal investigator for the study.
A BMI of 20-24 kg/m2 “is actually low and harmful,” noted Dr. Yusuf in an interview. Despite recent data consistently showing better survival among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m2, panels that have recently written weight guidelines are “ossified” and “refuse to accept” the implications of these findings, said Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine at McMaster and executive director of the Population Health Research Institute.
The results of the analyses that Dr. Leong reported also showed that BMI paled as a prognosticator for survival when compared with two other assessments of weight: waist/hip ratio, and even more powerful prognostically, a novel measure developed for this analysis that calculates the ratio of hand-grip strength/body weight. Waist/hip ratio adds the dimension of the location of body fat rather than just the amount, and the ratio of grip strength/body weight assesses the contribution of muscle mass to overall weight, noted Dr. Leong. He reported an optimal waist/hip ratio for survival of 0.83 in women and 0.93 in men, and an optimal strength/weight ratio of 0.42 in women and 0.50 in men. This means that a man whose hand-grip strength (measured in kg) is half of the person’s body weight has the best prospect for survival.
The study used data collected in PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology Study) on 142,410 people aged 35-70 years from any one of four high-income countries, 12 middle-income countries, and five low-income countries. The study excluded people who had at baseline known coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, or cancer, and the adjusted analysis controlled for age, sex, region, education, activity, alcohol and tobacco use, and the baseline prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. During follow-up, 9,712 of these people died.
The researchers saw a nadir for mortality among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m2 for both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. In addition, the link between total mortality and BMI was strongest in the subgroup of people on one or more treatments aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease, while it essentially disappeared among people not receiving any cardiovascular disease preventive measures, highlighting that the relationship now identified depends on a context of overall cardiovascular disease risk reduction, Dr. Leong said. The results also showed a very clear, direct, linear relationship between higher BMI and both the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as increased all-cause and noncardiovascular mortality among people with a BMI of less than 20 kg/m2.
Dr. Yusuf discussed the results of the analysis in a video interview.
The PURE study has received partial funding from unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Leong has been an advisor to Ferring Pharmaceuticals and has been a speaker on behalf of Janssen. Dr. Yusuf had no disclosures.
This story was updated 9/19/2019.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Pelvic floor muscle training outperforms attention-control massage for fecal incontinence
For first-line treatment of patients with fecal incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is superior to attention-control massage, according to investigators.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
In a study involving 98 patients, those who combined PFMT with biofeedback and conservative therapy were five times as likely to report improved symptoms than those who used attention-control massage and conservative therapy, reported Anja Ussing, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Hvidovre, Denmark, and colleagues. Patients in the PFMT group also had significantly greater reductions in severity of incontinence, based on Vaizey incontinence score.
“Evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of PFMT for fecal incontinence is lacking,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Although previous trials have evaluated PFMT, none controlled for the effect of interactions with care providers. “To evaluate the effect of PFMT, there is a need for a trial that uses a comparator to control for this nonspecific trial effect associated with the attention given by the health care professional.”
To perform such a trial, the investigators recruited 98 patients with a history of fecal incontinence for at least 6 months. Patients were excluded if they had severe neurologic conditions, pregnancy, diarrhea, rectal prolapse, previous radiotherapy or cancer surgery in the lower abdomen, cognitive impairment, inadequate fluency in Danish, or a history of at least two PFMT training sessions within the past year. Enrolled patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive PFMT with biofeedback and conservative treatment, or attention-control massage training and conservative therapy. The primary outcome was symptom improvement, determined by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 16 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, Vaizey score, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale.
Patients were predominantly female, with just three men in the PFMT group and six in the attention-control massage group. The PFMT group also had a slightly higher median age, at 65 years, compared with 58 years in the control group.
At 16 weeks, the difference in self-reported symptoms was dramatic, with 74.5% of patients in the PFMT group reporting improvement, compared with 35.5% in the control group, which translated to an unadjusted odds ratio of 5.16 (P = .0002). When symptom improvements were confined to those who reported being “very much better” or “much better,” the disparity between groups still remained strong, with an unadjusted OR of 2.98 (P = .025). Among the three secondary outcomes, only the Vaizey score showed a significant difference between groups. Patients treated with PFMT had a mean difference in Vaizey score change of –1.83 points, using a scale from 0 to 24, with 24 representing complete incontinence (P = .04).
“We were not able to show any differences between groups in the number of fecal incontinence episodes,” the investigators wrote. “We had much missing data in the bowel diaries and we can only guess what the result would have been if the data had been more complete. Electronic assessment of incontinence episodes could be a way to reduce the amount of missing data in future trials.”
Still, the investigators concluded that PFMT was the superior therapy. “Based on the results, PFMT in combination with conservative treatment should be offered as first-line treatment for adults with fecal incontinence.”
They also highlighted the broad applicability of their findings, regardless of facility type.
“In the current trial, more than one-third of patients had sphincter injuries confirmed at endoanal ultrasound, this reflects the tertiary setting of our trial,” they wrote. “However, our results may be highly relevant in a primary setting because there is an unmet need for treatment of fecal incontinence in primary health care, and the interventions do not necessarily need to be conducted at specialized centers.”
The study was funded by the Danish Foundation for Research in Physiotherapy, The Lundbeck Foundation, the Research Foundation at Copenhagen University Hospital, and the Foundation of Aase and Ejnar Danielsen. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Helsefonden, Gynzone, and others.
SOURCE: Ussing A et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.015.
For first-line treatment of patients with fecal incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is superior to attention-control massage, according to investigators.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
In a study involving 98 patients, those who combined PFMT with biofeedback and conservative therapy were five times as likely to report improved symptoms than those who used attention-control massage and conservative therapy, reported Anja Ussing, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Hvidovre, Denmark, and colleagues. Patients in the PFMT group also had significantly greater reductions in severity of incontinence, based on Vaizey incontinence score.
“Evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of PFMT for fecal incontinence is lacking,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Although previous trials have evaluated PFMT, none controlled for the effect of interactions with care providers. “To evaluate the effect of PFMT, there is a need for a trial that uses a comparator to control for this nonspecific trial effect associated with the attention given by the health care professional.”
To perform such a trial, the investigators recruited 98 patients with a history of fecal incontinence for at least 6 months. Patients were excluded if they had severe neurologic conditions, pregnancy, diarrhea, rectal prolapse, previous radiotherapy or cancer surgery in the lower abdomen, cognitive impairment, inadequate fluency in Danish, or a history of at least two PFMT training sessions within the past year. Enrolled patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive PFMT with biofeedback and conservative treatment, or attention-control massage training and conservative therapy. The primary outcome was symptom improvement, determined by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 16 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, Vaizey score, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale.
Patients were predominantly female, with just three men in the PFMT group and six in the attention-control massage group. The PFMT group also had a slightly higher median age, at 65 years, compared with 58 years in the control group.
At 16 weeks, the difference in self-reported symptoms was dramatic, with 74.5% of patients in the PFMT group reporting improvement, compared with 35.5% in the control group, which translated to an unadjusted odds ratio of 5.16 (P = .0002). When symptom improvements were confined to those who reported being “very much better” or “much better,” the disparity between groups still remained strong, with an unadjusted OR of 2.98 (P = .025). Among the three secondary outcomes, only the Vaizey score showed a significant difference between groups. Patients treated with PFMT had a mean difference in Vaizey score change of –1.83 points, using a scale from 0 to 24, with 24 representing complete incontinence (P = .04).
“We were not able to show any differences between groups in the number of fecal incontinence episodes,” the investigators wrote. “We had much missing data in the bowel diaries and we can only guess what the result would have been if the data had been more complete. Electronic assessment of incontinence episodes could be a way to reduce the amount of missing data in future trials.”
Still, the investigators concluded that PFMT was the superior therapy. “Based on the results, PFMT in combination with conservative treatment should be offered as first-line treatment for adults with fecal incontinence.”
They also highlighted the broad applicability of their findings, regardless of facility type.
“In the current trial, more than one-third of patients had sphincter injuries confirmed at endoanal ultrasound, this reflects the tertiary setting of our trial,” they wrote. “However, our results may be highly relevant in a primary setting because there is an unmet need for treatment of fecal incontinence in primary health care, and the interventions do not necessarily need to be conducted at specialized centers.”
The study was funded by the Danish Foundation for Research in Physiotherapy, The Lundbeck Foundation, the Research Foundation at Copenhagen University Hospital, and the Foundation of Aase and Ejnar Danielsen. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Helsefonden, Gynzone, and others.
SOURCE: Ussing A et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.015.
For first-line treatment of patients with fecal incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is superior to attention-control massage, according to investigators.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
In a study involving 98 patients, those who combined PFMT with biofeedback and conservative therapy were five times as likely to report improved symptoms than those who used attention-control massage and conservative therapy, reported Anja Ussing, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Hvidovre, Denmark, and colleagues. Patients in the PFMT group also had significantly greater reductions in severity of incontinence, based on Vaizey incontinence score.
“Evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of PFMT for fecal incontinence is lacking,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Although previous trials have evaluated PFMT, none controlled for the effect of interactions with care providers. “To evaluate the effect of PFMT, there is a need for a trial that uses a comparator to control for this nonspecific trial effect associated with the attention given by the health care professional.”
To perform such a trial, the investigators recruited 98 patients with a history of fecal incontinence for at least 6 months. Patients were excluded if they had severe neurologic conditions, pregnancy, diarrhea, rectal prolapse, previous radiotherapy or cancer surgery in the lower abdomen, cognitive impairment, inadequate fluency in Danish, or a history of at least two PFMT training sessions within the past year. Enrolled patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive PFMT with biofeedback and conservative treatment, or attention-control massage training and conservative therapy. The primary outcome was symptom improvement, determined by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 16 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, Vaizey score, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale.
Patients were predominantly female, with just three men in the PFMT group and six in the attention-control massage group. The PFMT group also had a slightly higher median age, at 65 years, compared with 58 years in the control group.
At 16 weeks, the difference in self-reported symptoms was dramatic, with 74.5% of patients in the PFMT group reporting improvement, compared with 35.5% in the control group, which translated to an unadjusted odds ratio of 5.16 (P = .0002). When symptom improvements were confined to those who reported being “very much better” or “much better,” the disparity between groups still remained strong, with an unadjusted OR of 2.98 (P = .025). Among the three secondary outcomes, only the Vaizey score showed a significant difference between groups. Patients treated with PFMT had a mean difference in Vaizey score change of –1.83 points, using a scale from 0 to 24, with 24 representing complete incontinence (P = .04).
“We were not able to show any differences between groups in the number of fecal incontinence episodes,” the investigators wrote. “We had much missing data in the bowel diaries and we can only guess what the result would have been if the data had been more complete. Electronic assessment of incontinence episodes could be a way to reduce the amount of missing data in future trials.”
Still, the investigators concluded that PFMT was the superior therapy. “Based on the results, PFMT in combination with conservative treatment should be offered as first-line treatment for adults with fecal incontinence.”
They also highlighted the broad applicability of their findings, regardless of facility type.
“In the current trial, more than one-third of patients had sphincter injuries confirmed at endoanal ultrasound, this reflects the tertiary setting of our trial,” they wrote. “However, our results may be highly relevant in a primary setting because there is an unmet need for treatment of fecal incontinence in primary health care, and the interventions do not necessarily need to be conducted at specialized centers.”
The study was funded by the Danish Foundation for Research in Physiotherapy, The Lundbeck Foundation, the Research Foundation at Copenhagen University Hospital, and the Foundation of Aase and Ejnar Danielsen. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Helsefonden, Gynzone, and others.
SOURCE: Ussing A et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.015.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
New hypertension cases halved with community-wide salt substitution
PARIS – In rural Peru, a comprehensive community-wide strategy to replace conventional table salt with a formulation that was 25% potassium chloride halved incident hypertension, also dropping blood pressure in participants with baseline hypertension.
The multifaceted intervention targeted six villages at the far north of Peru, replacing table salt with the lower-sodium substitute, J. Jaime Miranda, MD, PhD, said at a prevention-focused, late-breaking research session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The 75/25 mixture had a palatable proportion of potassium, and was easily produced by combining table salt with potassium chloride crystals.
Dr. Miranda, director of the CRONICAS Center of Excellence at the Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, and colleagues enrolled virtually all adult residents of the six villages in the study; patients who reported heart disease or chronic kidney disease were excluded.
“We wanted to achieve and shape a pragmatic study – and a pragmatic study that incorporates day-to-day behavior. We eat every day, but we think very little of our salt habits,” said Dr. Miranda in a video interview.
In all, 2,376 of 2,605 potential participants enrolled in the study, which used a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial design. To track the primary outcome measures of systolic and diastolic BP, measurements were obtained every 5 months for a total of seven rounds of measurement, said Dr. Miranda.
Dr. Miranda said that the investigators borrowed principles from social marketing to ensure community-wide replacement of table salt with the low-sodium substitute. This meant that they branded and packaged the low-sodium salt and gave it to participants at no cost – but with a catch. To receive the low-sodium salt, participants had to turn in their table salt.
The effort was supported by promotional events and a trained “sales force” who brought messaging to families, restaurants, and key voices in the community. The attractively packaged replacement salt was distributed with a similarly branded shaker. “We wanted to guarantee the full replacement of salt in the entire village,” explained Dr. Miranda.
At the end of the study, individuals with hypertension saw a decrease in systolic BP of 1.92 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, –3.29 to –0.54).
New hypertension diagnoses, a secondary outcome measure, fell by 55% in participating villages; the hazard ratio for hypertension incidence was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.31-0.66) in a fully adjusted statistical model that accounted for clustering at the village level, as well as age, sex, education, wealth index, and body mass index, said Dr. Miranda.
Older village residents with hypertension saw greater BP reduction; for those aged at least 60 years, the mean reduction was 2.17 mm Hg (95% CI, –3.67 to –0.68).
The positive findings were met with broad applause during his presentation, a response that made his 15-hour trip from Lima to Paris worthwhile, said Dr. Miranda.
Adherence was assessed by obtaining 24-hour urine samples from a random sample of 100 participants before and after the study. “This was my biggest fear – that as soon as we left the door, people would go and throw it away,” said Dr. Miranda. Among these participants, excreted potassium rose, indicating adherence, but sodium stayed basically the same. Possible explanations included that individuals were adding table salt to their diets, or that other prepared foods or condiments contained high amounts of sodium.
The study shows the feasibility of a community-wide intervention that achieved the dual aims of population-wide reductions in BP and reduction in incident BP, and of achieving clinically meaningful benefits for the high-risk population, said Dr. Miranda. He remarked that the population was young overall, with a mean age of 43 years and a low mean baseline systolic BP of 113, making the modest population-wide reduction more notable.
“We wanted to shift the entire distribution of blood pressure in the village. And with that, we see gains not only in public health, but also effective improvements in blood pressure in those at high risk, particularly those who tend to have high blood pressure,” said Dr. Miranda.
Discussant Bruce Neal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and senior director of the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia, congratulated Dr. Miranda and colleagues on accomplishing “a truly enormous project.” He began by noting that, though the reductions were modest, “the low starting blood pressures were almost certainly responsible for the magnitude of effect seen in this study.” He added that “this is nonetheless a worthwhile blood pressure reduction, particularly if it was sustained throughout life.”
Addressing the lack of decrease in excreted urine sodium, Dr. Neal noted that participants may have supplemented their diet with additional sodium by one means or another, “which might also have attenuated the blood pressure difference – but it could also reflect the challenges of measuring sodium and potassium effectively with 24-hour urine samples, which are difficult to collect.”
The lack of adverse effects was notable, said Dr. Neal. “When considering the use of salt substitute at the population level, the first question that arises is: ‘What about the risks of hyperkalemia?’
“I think those risks are probably greatly overstated,” he said, noting that only individuals with severe chronic kidney disease would likely be affected, and those individuals are already well versed on the importance of avoiding excess dietary potassium.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health through the Global Alliance for Chronic Disease program. Dr. Miranda reported that he had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Neal reported that he has financial relationships with Nu-Tec Salt and a Beijing-based salt manufacturer, related to research into salt substitutes.
PARIS – In rural Peru, a comprehensive community-wide strategy to replace conventional table salt with a formulation that was 25% potassium chloride halved incident hypertension, also dropping blood pressure in participants with baseline hypertension.
The multifaceted intervention targeted six villages at the far north of Peru, replacing table salt with the lower-sodium substitute, J. Jaime Miranda, MD, PhD, said at a prevention-focused, late-breaking research session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The 75/25 mixture had a palatable proportion of potassium, and was easily produced by combining table salt with potassium chloride crystals.
Dr. Miranda, director of the CRONICAS Center of Excellence at the Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, and colleagues enrolled virtually all adult residents of the six villages in the study; patients who reported heart disease or chronic kidney disease were excluded.
“We wanted to achieve and shape a pragmatic study – and a pragmatic study that incorporates day-to-day behavior. We eat every day, but we think very little of our salt habits,” said Dr. Miranda in a video interview.
In all, 2,376 of 2,605 potential participants enrolled in the study, which used a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial design. To track the primary outcome measures of systolic and diastolic BP, measurements were obtained every 5 months for a total of seven rounds of measurement, said Dr. Miranda.
Dr. Miranda said that the investigators borrowed principles from social marketing to ensure community-wide replacement of table salt with the low-sodium substitute. This meant that they branded and packaged the low-sodium salt and gave it to participants at no cost – but with a catch. To receive the low-sodium salt, participants had to turn in their table salt.
The effort was supported by promotional events and a trained “sales force” who brought messaging to families, restaurants, and key voices in the community. The attractively packaged replacement salt was distributed with a similarly branded shaker. “We wanted to guarantee the full replacement of salt in the entire village,” explained Dr. Miranda.
At the end of the study, individuals with hypertension saw a decrease in systolic BP of 1.92 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, –3.29 to –0.54).
New hypertension diagnoses, a secondary outcome measure, fell by 55% in participating villages; the hazard ratio for hypertension incidence was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.31-0.66) in a fully adjusted statistical model that accounted for clustering at the village level, as well as age, sex, education, wealth index, and body mass index, said Dr. Miranda.
Older village residents with hypertension saw greater BP reduction; for those aged at least 60 years, the mean reduction was 2.17 mm Hg (95% CI, –3.67 to –0.68).
The positive findings were met with broad applause during his presentation, a response that made his 15-hour trip from Lima to Paris worthwhile, said Dr. Miranda.
Adherence was assessed by obtaining 24-hour urine samples from a random sample of 100 participants before and after the study. “This was my biggest fear – that as soon as we left the door, people would go and throw it away,” said Dr. Miranda. Among these participants, excreted potassium rose, indicating adherence, but sodium stayed basically the same. Possible explanations included that individuals were adding table salt to their diets, or that other prepared foods or condiments contained high amounts of sodium.
The study shows the feasibility of a community-wide intervention that achieved the dual aims of population-wide reductions in BP and reduction in incident BP, and of achieving clinically meaningful benefits for the high-risk population, said Dr. Miranda. He remarked that the population was young overall, with a mean age of 43 years and a low mean baseline systolic BP of 113, making the modest population-wide reduction more notable.
“We wanted to shift the entire distribution of blood pressure in the village. And with that, we see gains not only in public health, but also effective improvements in blood pressure in those at high risk, particularly those who tend to have high blood pressure,” said Dr. Miranda.
Discussant Bruce Neal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and senior director of the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia, congratulated Dr. Miranda and colleagues on accomplishing “a truly enormous project.” He began by noting that, though the reductions were modest, “the low starting blood pressures were almost certainly responsible for the magnitude of effect seen in this study.” He added that “this is nonetheless a worthwhile blood pressure reduction, particularly if it was sustained throughout life.”
Addressing the lack of decrease in excreted urine sodium, Dr. Neal noted that participants may have supplemented their diet with additional sodium by one means or another, “which might also have attenuated the blood pressure difference – but it could also reflect the challenges of measuring sodium and potassium effectively with 24-hour urine samples, which are difficult to collect.”
The lack of adverse effects was notable, said Dr. Neal. “When considering the use of salt substitute at the population level, the first question that arises is: ‘What about the risks of hyperkalemia?’
“I think those risks are probably greatly overstated,” he said, noting that only individuals with severe chronic kidney disease would likely be affected, and those individuals are already well versed on the importance of avoiding excess dietary potassium.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health through the Global Alliance for Chronic Disease program. Dr. Miranda reported that he had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Neal reported that he has financial relationships with Nu-Tec Salt and a Beijing-based salt manufacturer, related to research into salt substitutes.
PARIS – In rural Peru, a comprehensive community-wide strategy to replace conventional table salt with a formulation that was 25% potassium chloride halved incident hypertension, also dropping blood pressure in participants with baseline hypertension.
The multifaceted intervention targeted six villages at the far north of Peru, replacing table salt with the lower-sodium substitute, J. Jaime Miranda, MD, PhD, said at a prevention-focused, late-breaking research session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The 75/25 mixture had a palatable proportion of potassium, and was easily produced by combining table salt with potassium chloride crystals.
Dr. Miranda, director of the CRONICAS Center of Excellence at the Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, and colleagues enrolled virtually all adult residents of the six villages in the study; patients who reported heart disease or chronic kidney disease were excluded.
“We wanted to achieve and shape a pragmatic study – and a pragmatic study that incorporates day-to-day behavior. We eat every day, but we think very little of our salt habits,” said Dr. Miranda in a video interview.
In all, 2,376 of 2,605 potential participants enrolled in the study, which used a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial design. To track the primary outcome measures of systolic and diastolic BP, measurements were obtained every 5 months for a total of seven rounds of measurement, said Dr. Miranda.
Dr. Miranda said that the investigators borrowed principles from social marketing to ensure community-wide replacement of table salt with the low-sodium substitute. This meant that they branded and packaged the low-sodium salt and gave it to participants at no cost – but with a catch. To receive the low-sodium salt, participants had to turn in their table salt.
The effort was supported by promotional events and a trained “sales force” who brought messaging to families, restaurants, and key voices in the community. The attractively packaged replacement salt was distributed with a similarly branded shaker. “We wanted to guarantee the full replacement of salt in the entire village,” explained Dr. Miranda.
At the end of the study, individuals with hypertension saw a decrease in systolic BP of 1.92 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, –3.29 to –0.54).
New hypertension diagnoses, a secondary outcome measure, fell by 55% in participating villages; the hazard ratio for hypertension incidence was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.31-0.66) in a fully adjusted statistical model that accounted for clustering at the village level, as well as age, sex, education, wealth index, and body mass index, said Dr. Miranda.
Older village residents with hypertension saw greater BP reduction; for those aged at least 60 years, the mean reduction was 2.17 mm Hg (95% CI, –3.67 to –0.68).
The positive findings were met with broad applause during his presentation, a response that made his 15-hour trip from Lima to Paris worthwhile, said Dr. Miranda.
Adherence was assessed by obtaining 24-hour urine samples from a random sample of 100 participants before and after the study. “This was my biggest fear – that as soon as we left the door, people would go and throw it away,” said Dr. Miranda. Among these participants, excreted potassium rose, indicating adherence, but sodium stayed basically the same. Possible explanations included that individuals were adding table salt to their diets, or that other prepared foods or condiments contained high amounts of sodium.
The study shows the feasibility of a community-wide intervention that achieved the dual aims of population-wide reductions in BP and reduction in incident BP, and of achieving clinically meaningful benefits for the high-risk population, said Dr. Miranda. He remarked that the population was young overall, with a mean age of 43 years and a low mean baseline systolic BP of 113, making the modest population-wide reduction more notable.
“We wanted to shift the entire distribution of blood pressure in the village. And with that, we see gains not only in public health, but also effective improvements in blood pressure in those at high risk, particularly those who tend to have high blood pressure,” said Dr. Miranda.
Discussant Bruce Neal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and senior director of the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia, congratulated Dr. Miranda and colleagues on accomplishing “a truly enormous project.” He began by noting that, though the reductions were modest, “the low starting blood pressures were almost certainly responsible for the magnitude of effect seen in this study.” He added that “this is nonetheless a worthwhile blood pressure reduction, particularly if it was sustained throughout life.”
Addressing the lack of decrease in excreted urine sodium, Dr. Neal noted that participants may have supplemented their diet with additional sodium by one means or another, “which might also have attenuated the blood pressure difference – but it could also reflect the challenges of measuring sodium and potassium effectively with 24-hour urine samples, which are difficult to collect.”
The lack of adverse effects was notable, said Dr. Neal. “When considering the use of salt substitute at the population level, the first question that arises is: ‘What about the risks of hyperkalemia?’
“I think those risks are probably greatly overstated,” he said, noting that only individuals with severe chronic kidney disease would likely be affected, and those individuals are already well versed on the importance of avoiding excess dietary potassium.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health through the Global Alliance for Chronic Disease program. Dr. Miranda reported that he had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Neal reported that he has financial relationships with Nu-Tec Salt and a Beijing-based salt manufacturer, related to research into salt substitutes.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
In PAD, dropping statins ups death risk 43%
PARIS – , according to new research presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Patients with peripheral manifestations of cardiovascular disease “are a population with an extremely high risk to suffer a heart attack or a stroke,” said Joern Dopheide, MD, during a press conference at the meeting. Despite the known benefits of statins, including the reduction of all-cause and cardiovascular death and the reduction of morbidity, adherence to guideline-directed statin therapy is far from optimal, said Dr. Dopheide of Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.
Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) not taking statins had a mortality rate of 34%, more than three times that of patients adherent to an intensified statin regimen. More surprisingly, patients who had been on a statin and then stopped the medication also had a mortality rate of 33%, indistinguishable from those who had never been treated with a statin.
Although statin adherence is low in general, it’s especially low in patients with PAD, said Dr. Dopheide. Still, he said, “few systematic data exist on the prognostic value of statin adherence and the correlation between adherence and cardiovascular outcome in PAD patients.”
Accordingly, Dr. Dopheide and his coinvestigators sought to determine the association between statin adherence and survival in PAD patients. The researchers obtained baseline and follow-up data for a cohort of 691 symptomatic PAD patients seen at a single site, looking at statin dosage, LDL cholesterol levels, and survival.
The patients were followed for a period of 50 months. Dr. Dopheide said that “Over the time course, we were able to increase the statin adherence from about 73% to about 81%, and parallel to that, we were able to reduce the LDL cholesterol levels from about 97 to 83 mg/dL, and we were able to increase the intensity of patients on statin therapy.”
Dr. Dopheide said that he and his colleagues saw a dose-response effect, so that the biggest drop in cholesterol was seen in patients on high statin doses, on more potent statins, or both.
Intensity was increased in some cases by upping statin dose – the mean statin dose climbed from 50 to 58 mg daily during the study period. An alternative strategy was to switch to a more potent statin such as atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; sometimes both intensity and dose were boosted.
“We were able to see that patients who were always on their statin therapy had a pretty low mortality rate of about 20%,” a figure that was halved for patients on more intensive statin therapy, who had a mortality rate of 10% across the study period, said Dr. Dopheide. “Patients in whom we started a statin therapy still profited from it, and had only a 15% mortality,” he added.
Some of the most surprising – and disturbing – study findings involved those who reduced their statin dose: “When patients discontinued their usual dose and decreased it, they suffered an even higher mortality rate, of nearly 43%. So that was kind of surprising and shocking to us.”
Identifying these high-risk patients and keeping them adherent is a substantial clinical challenge, but an important goal, said Dr. Dopheide. “We know that patients with peripheral arterial disease are a little more underrepresented in daily practice; it’s hard to identify them, especially when they are asymptomatic,” he acknowledged. However, once a PAD patient is identified, “One should at least keep the patient on the statin dosage they have,” or initiate statins if needed.
Further, warned Dr. Dopheide, “One should never discontinue statin or decrease the dosage,” adding that PAD patients should be informed that they are at “very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.” These patients “should regard their statin therapy as one of the most important and life-saving medications they can take,” he said.
Dr. Dopheide reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dopheide, J., et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P5363.
PARIS – , according to new research presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Patients with peripheral manifestations of cardiovascular disease “are a population with an extremely high risk to suffer a heart attack or a stroke,” said Joern Dopheide, MD, during a press conference at the meeting. Despite the known benefits of statins, including the reduction of all-cause and cardiovascular death and the reduction of morbidity, adherence to guideline-directed statin therapy is far from optimal, said Dr. Dopheide of Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.
Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) not taking statins had a mortality rate of 34%, more than three times that of patients adherent to an intensified statin regimen. More surprisingly, patients who had been on a statin and then stopped the medication also had a mortality rate of 33%, indistinguishable from those who had never been treated with a statin.
Although statin adherence is low in general, it’s especially low in patients with PAD, said Dr. Dopheide. Still, he said, “few systematic data exist on the prognostic value of statin adherence and the correlation between adherence and cardiovascular outcome in PAD patients.”
Accordingly, Dr. Dopheide and his coinvestigators sought to determine the association between statin adherence and survival in PAD patients. The researchers obtained baseline and follow-up data for a cohort of 691 symptomatic PAD patients seen at a single site, looking at statin dosage, LDL cholesterol levels, and survival.
The patients were followed for a period of 50 months. Dr. Dopheide said that “Over the time course, we were able to increase the statin adherence from about 73% to about 81%, and parallel to that, we were able to reduce the LDL cholesterol levels from about 97 to 83 mg/dL, and we were able to increase the intensity of patients on statin therapy.”
Dr. Dopheide said that he and his colleagues saw a dose-response effect, so that the biggest drop in cholesterol was seen in patients on high statin doses, on more potent statins, or both.
Intensity was increased in some cases by upping statin dose – the mean statin dose climbed from 50 to 58 mg daily during the study period. An alternative strategy was to switch to a more potent statin such as atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; sometimes both intensity and dose were boosted.
“We were able to see that patients who were always on their statin therapy had a pretty low mortality rate of about 20%,” a figure that was halved for patients on more intensive statin therapy, who had a mortality rate of 10% across the study period, said Dr. Dopheide. “Patients in whom we started a statin therapy still profited from it, and had only a 15% mortality,” he added.
Some of the most surprising – and disturbing – study findings involved those who reduced their statin dose: “When patients discontinued their usual dose and decreased it, they suffered an even higher mortality rate, of nearly 43%. So that was kind of surprising and shocking to us.”
Identifying these high-risk patients and keeping them adherent is a substantial clinical challenge, but an important goal, said Dr. Dopheide. “We know that patients with peripheral arterial disease are a little more underrepresented in daily practice; it’s hard to identify them, especially when they are asymptomatic,” he acknowledged. However, once a PAD patient is identified, “One should at least keep the patient on the statin dosage they have,” or initiate statins if needed.
Further, warned Dr. Dopheide, “One should never discontinue statin or decrease the dosage,” adding that PAD patients should be informed that they are at “very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.” These patients “should regard their statin therapy as one of the most important and life-saving medications they can take,” he said.
Dr. Dopheide reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dopheide, J., et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P5363.
PARIS – , according to new research presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Patients with peripheral manifestations of cardiovascular disease “are a population with an extremely high risk to suffer a heart attack or a stroke,” said Joern Dopheide, MD, during a press conference at the meeting. Despite the known benefits of statins, including the reduction of all-cause and cardiovascular death and the reduction of morbidity, adherence to guideline-directed statin therapy is far from optimal, said Dr. Dopheide of Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.
Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) not taking statins had a mortality rate of 34%, more than three times that of patients adherent to an intensified statin regimen. More surprisingly, patients who had been on a statin and then stopped the medication also had a mortality rate of 33%, indistinguishable from those who had never been treated with a statin.
Although statin adherence is low in general, it’s especially low in patients with PAD, said Dr. Dopheide. Still, he said, “few systematic data exist on the prognostic value of statin adherence and the correlation between adherence and cardiovascular outcome in PAD patients.”
Accordingly, Dr. Dopheide and his coinvestigators sought to determine the association between statin adherence and survival in PAD patients. The researchers obtained baseline and follow-up data for a cohort of 691 symptomatic PAD patients seen at a single site, looking at statin dosage, LDL cholesterol levels, and survival.
The patients were followed for a period of 50 months. Dr. Dopheide said that “Over the time course, we were able to increase the statin adherence from about 73% to about 81%, and parallel to that, we were able to reduce the LDL cholesterol levels from about 97 to 83 mg/dL, and we were able to increase the intensity of patients on statin therapy.”
Dr. Dopheide said that he and his colleagues saw a dose-response effect, so that the biggest drop in cholesterol was seen in patients on high statin doses, on more potent statins, or both.
Intensity was increased in some cases by upping statin dose – the mean statin dose climbed from 50 to 58 mg daily during the study period. An alternative strategy was to switch to a more potent statin such as atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; sometimes both intensity and dose were boosted.
“We were able to see that patients who were always on their statin therapy had a pretty low mortality rate of about 20%,” a figure that was halved for patients on more intensive statin therapy, who had a mortality rate of 10% across the study period, said Dr. Dopheide. “Patients in whom we started a statin therapy still profited from it, and had only a 15% mortality,” he added.
Some of the most surprising – and disturbing – study findings involved those who reduced their statin dose: “When patients discontinued their usual dose and decreased it, they suffered an even higher mortality rate, of nearly 43%. So that was kind of surprising and shocking to us.”
Identifying these high-risk patients and keeping them adherent is a substantial clinical challenge, but an important goal, said Dr. Dopheide. “We know that patients with peripheral arterial disease are a little more underrepresented in daily practice; it’s hard to identify them, especially when they are asymptomatic,” he acknowledged. However, once a PAD patient is identified, “One should at least keep the patient on the statin dosage they have,” or initiate statins if needed.
Further, warned Dr. Dopheide, “One should never discontinue statin or decrease the dosage,” adding that PAD patients should be informed that they are at “very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.” These patients “should regard their statin therapy as one of the most important and life-saving medications they can take,” he said.
Dr. Dopheide reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dopheide, J., et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P5363.
AT ESC CONGRESS 2019
DAPA-HF results transform dapagliflozin from antidiabetic to heart failure drug
PARIS – Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant 27% drop in cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients with existing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and no diabetes, results that in a stroke changed the status of dapagliflozin from fundamentally a drug that treats diabetes to a drug that treats heart failure.
“Dapagliflozin offers a new approach to the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction” (HFrEF), John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The results he reported from the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) trial showed statistically significant benefits when adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed therapy for a list of outcomes that include a 17% drop in all-cause death compared with placebo, an 18% fall in cardiovascular death, and a 25% relative reduction in total heart failure hospitalizations plus cardiovascular deaths during a median follow-up of just over 18 months. The primary endpoint of the reduction in cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or an urgent heart failure visit fell by 25% in the enrolled patients with diabetes (45% of the study population, all with type 2 diabetes), and by 27% in the remaining patients who had no diabetes, showing that the presence of diabetes had no impact on the heart failure benefit from dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The absolute reduction in the primary endpoint was about 5%, with a number needed to treat of 21 to prevent one primary endpoint during 18 months of treatment.
Dr. McMurray’s report of the primary endpoint as well as the finding that the drug was as effective in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes were both met with loud applause by the packed congress audience.
The efficacy results also showed that 58% of patients on dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful (5 point or greater) increase in their quality of life score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire after 8 months on treatment compared with a 51% rate in the placebo patients, a statistically significant difference.
The safety results showed no new signals for a drug that already has regulatory approval but was being used in a novel population. The rate of major hypoglycemia was virtually nonexistent, 0.2%, and identical in both treatment arms. All adverse events occurred at roughly equal rates in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, with a 5% rate of adverse events leading to study discontinuation in both arms, and a serious adverse event rate of 38% in the dapaglifolzin patients and 42% in the placebo patients. The rate of worsening renal function was less than 2% in both arms and not statistically different.
“This is as close to a home run as you see in heart failure treatment,” commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, and a heart failure clinician and researcher.
DAPA-HF “is a landmark trial. It took a diabetes drug and used it in patients without diabetes, a concept that would have been considered outlandish 5 years ago. Scientifically it’s huge,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
The DAPA-HF results were another step in the remarkable journey toward heart failure intervention taken by the SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransport 2) inhibitor class of drugs that includes dapagliflozin as well as canagliflozin (Invokana) and empagliflozin(Jardiance), a path that began 4 years ago with the report of empagliflozin’s unexpected efficacy for reducing cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in a large cardiovascular-safety study, EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28). Subsequent reports showed similar effects benefiting heart failure and survival for canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, and now with DAPA-HF the evidence extended the benefit to heart failure patients regardless of whether they have diabetes. Additional studies now in progress are exploring the same question for empagliflozin and canagliflozin.
The results from DAPA-HF are likely a class effect for all these SGLT2 inhibitors, suggested Dr. McMurray in a video interview, a view shared by several other experts. He cautioned clinicians against using dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but without diabetes until this indication receives regulatory approval, and even then using dapagliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors this way may take some getting used to on the part of cardiologists and other clinicians.
“The results put dapagliflozin in the same league as [standard HFrEF drugs], but using it will require a shift in thinking. Most physicians will initially say “aren’t SGLT2 inhibitors used for treating diabetes?” Dr. Bhatt said.
“I’m sure most cardiologists are not familiar with the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ll have to educate them,” conceded Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. However, other aspects of dapagliflozin and this drug class in general may make the SGLT2 inhibitors particularly attractive and spur their use once labeling changes.
The adverse-event profile seen in DAPA-HF looked very “clean,” said Dr. Mann, especially compared with the other medical classes recommended in guidelines for patients with HFrEF: the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists such as spironolactone, and the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto). As used in DAPA-HF dapagliflozin also had the advantages of not needing dose titration or laboratory follow-up, as do several of these other drug classes.
“I think dapagliflozin will have a huge uptake [for treating HFrEF], because it will be easy for primary care physicians to prescribe. It will be easier to use than traditional heart failure medications.” Once approved for heart failure use, Dr. Mann predicted a standard dosing regimen for HFrEF patients of an ACE inhibitor, ARB or ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor. He suggested that this large and cumbersome collection of medications could conceivably be simplified into a polypill.
He also saw a suggestion in the DAPA-HF results that combining dapagliflozin with the ARB valsartan might have similar efficacy to dapaglifozin plus sacubitril-valsartan, which might also help simplify heart failure treatment. In the trial, 11% of patients received sacubritril-valsartan, and the primary-endpoint reduction compared with placebo in this subgroup was 26%, compared with 25% for patients treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. Currently, labeling for sacubitril-valsartan calls for starting a patients on an ACE inhibitor or ARB, titrating them to a stable and effective dosage, and then stopping this regimen to switch to the ARNI. If dapagliflozin is also added, then a simpler approach would be to just start a patient on valsartan, optimize the dosage, and then start dapagliflozin and achieve the same benefit as from sacubitril-valsartan plus dapagliflozin. While an attractive scenario, it needs validation, Dr. Mann said in an interview.
One additional, notable finding from DAPA-HF was that the primary endpoint benefit appeared much stronger in patients with New York Heart Association class II heart failure at entry, two-thirds of the study population, compared with patients with class III or IV HFrEF. Compared with placebo the primary endpoint fell by 37% among the class II patients, a statistically significant difference, but by just 10% in the class III and IV patients, a reduction that was not significant compared with placebo. This too needs more study, commented Dr. Mann, as does the ways by which dapagliflozin and the other SGLT2 inhibitors benefit heart failure patients. Currently the ways by which dapagliflozin produced these results remain unknown.
DAPA-HF randomized a total of 4,744 patients at 410 sites in 20 countries. About 10% of enrolled patients were in the United States.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). AstraZeneca paid Glasgow University to cover Dr. McMurray’s salary during the time he spent working as principal investigator of DAPA-HF. Dr. McMurray had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, Novartis, and Tenaya Therapeutics. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from AstraZeneca, and he has served as a consultant to or received research funding from several other companies.
PARIS – Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant 27% drop in cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients with existing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and no diabetes, results that in a stroke changed the status of dapagliflozin from fundamentally a drug that treats diabetes to a drug that treats heart failure.
“Dapagliflozin offers a new approach to the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction” (HFrEF), John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The results he reported from the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) trial showed statistically significant benefits when adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed therapy for a list of outcomes that include a 17% drop in all-cause death compared with placebo, an 18% fall in cardiovascular death, and a 25% relative reduction in total heart failure hospitalizations plus cardiovascular deaths during a median follow-up of just over 18 months. The primary endpoint of the reduction in cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or an urgent heart failure visit fell by 25% in the enrolled patients with diabetes (45% of the study population, all with type 2 diabetes), and by 27% in the remaining patients who had no diabetes, showing that the presence of diabetes had no impact on the heart failure benefit from dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The absolute reduction in the primary endpoint was about 5%, with a number needed to treat of 21 to prevent one primary endpoint during 18 months of treatment.
Dr. McMurray’s report of the primary endpoint as well as the finding that the drug was as effective in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes were both met with loud applause by the packed congress audience.
The efficacy results also showed that 58% of patients on dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful (5 point or greater) increase in their quality of life score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire after 8 months on treatment compared with a 51% rate in the placebo patients, a statistically significant difference.
The safety results showed no new signals for a drug that already has regulatory approval but was being used in a novel population. The rate of major hypoglycemia was virtually nonexistent, 0.2%, and identical in both treatment arms. All adverse events occurred at roughly equal rates in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, with a 5% rate of adverse events leading to study discontinuation in both arms, and a serious adverse event rate of 38% in the dapaglifolzin patients and 42% in the placebo patients. The rate of worsening renal function was less than 2% in both arms and not statistically different.
“This is as close to a home run as you see in heart failure treatment,” commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, and a heart failure clinician and researcher.
DAPA-HF “is a landmark trial. It took a diabetes drug and used it in patients without diabetes, a concept that would have been considered outlandish 5 years ago. Scientifically it’s huge,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
The DAPA-HF results were another step in the remarkable journey toward heart failure intervention taken by the SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransport 2) inhibitor class of drugs that includes dapagliflozin as well as canagliflozin (Invokana) and empagliflozin(Jardiance), a path that began 4 years ago with the report of empagliflozin’s unexpected efficacy for reducing cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in a large cardiovascular-safety study, EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28). Subsequent reports showed similar effects benefiting heart failure and survival for canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, and now with DAPA-HF the evidence extended the benefit to heart failure patients regardless of whether they have diabetes. Additional studies now in progress are exploring the same question for empagliflozin and canagliflozin.
The results from DAPA-HF are likely a class effect for all these SGLT2 inhibitors, suggested Dr. McMurray in a video interview, a view shared by several other experts. He cautioned clinicians against using dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but without diabetes until this indication receives regulatory approval, and even then using dapagliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors this way may take some getting used to on the part of cardiologists and other clinicians.
“The results put dapagliflozin in the same league as [standard HFrEF drugs], but using it will require a shift in thinking. Most physicians will initially say “aren’t SGLT2 inhibitors used for treating diabetes?” Dr. Bhatt said.
“I’m sure most cardiologists are not familiar with the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ll have to educate them,” conceded Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. However, other aspects of dapagliflozin and this drug class in general may make the SGLT2 inhibitors particularly attractive and spur their use once labeling changes.
The adverse-event profile seen in DAPA-HF looked very “clean,” said Dr. Mann, especially compared with the other medical classes recommended in guidelines for patients with HFrEF: the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists such as spironolactone, and the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto). As used in DAPA-HF dapagliflozin also had the advantages of not needing dose titration or laboratory follow-up, as do several of these other drug classes.
“I think dapagliflozin will have a huge uptake [for treating HFrEF], because it will be easy for primary care physicians to prescribe. It will be easier to use than traditional heart failure medications.” Once approved for heart failure use, Dr. Mann predicted a standard dosing regimen for HFrEF patients of an ACE inhibitor, ARB or ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor. He suggested that this large and cumbersome collection of medications could conceivably be simplified into a polypill.
He also saw a suggestion in the DAPA-HF results that combining dapagliflozin with the ARB valsartan might have similar efficacy to dapaglifozin plus sacubitril-valsartan, which might also help simplify heart failure treatment. In the trial, 11% of patients received sacubritril-valsartan, and the primary-endpoint reduction compared with placebo in this subgroup was 26%, compared with 25% for patients treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. Currently, labeling for sacubitril-valsartan calls for starting a patients on an ACE inhibitor or ARB, titrating them to a stable and effective dosage, and then stopping this regimen to switch to the ARNI. If dapagliflozin is also added, then a simpler approach would be to just start a patient on valsartan, optimize the dosage, and then start dapagliflozin and achieve the same benefit as from sacubitril-valsartan plus dapagliflozin. While an attractive scenario, it needs validation, Dr. Mann said in an interview.
One additional, notable finding from DAPA-HF was that the primary endpoint benefit appeared much stronger in patients with New York Heart Association class II heart failure at entry, two-thirds of the study population, compared with patients with class III or IV HFrEF. Compared with placebo the primary endpoint fell by 37% among the class II patients, a statistically significant difference, but by just 10% in the class III and IV patients, a reduction that was not significant compared with placebo. This too needs more study, commented Dr. Mann, as does the ways by which dapagliflozin and the other SGLT2 inhibitors benefit heart failure patients. Currently the ways by which dapagliflozin produced these results remain unknown.
DAPA-HF randomized a total of 4,744 patients at 410 sites in 20 countries. About 10% of enrolled patients were in the United States.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). AstraZeneca paid Glasgow University to cover Dr. McMurray’s salary during the time he spent working as principal investigator of DAPA-HF. Dr. McMurray had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, Novartis, and Tenaya Therapeutics. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from AstraZeneca, and he has served as a consultant to or received research funding from several other companies.
PARIS – Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant 27% drop in cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients with existing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and no diabetes, results that in a stroke changed the status of dapagliflozin from fundamentally a drug that treats diabetes to a drug that treats heart failure.
“Dapagliflozin offers a new approach to the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction” (HFrEF), John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The results he reported from the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) trial showed statistically significant benefits when adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed therapy for a list of outcomes that include a 17% drop in all-cause death compared with placebo, an 18% fall in cardiovascular death, and a 25% relative reduction in total heart failure hospitalizations plus cardiovascular deaths during a median follow-up of just over 18 months. The primary endpoint of the reduction in cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or an urgent heart failure visit fell by 25% in the enrolled patients with diabetes (45% of the study population, all with type 2 diabetes), and by 27% in the remaining patients who had no diabetes, showing that the presence of diabetes had no impact on the heart failure benefit from dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The absolute reduction in the primary endpoint was about 5%, with a number needed to treat of 21 to prevent one primary endpoint during 18 months of treatment.
Dr. McMurray’s report of the primary endpoint as well as the finding that the drug was as effective in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes were both met with loud applause by the packed congress audience.
The efficacy results also showed that 58% of patients on dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful (5 point or greater) increase in their quality of life score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire after 8 months on treatment compared with a 51% rate in the placebo patients, a statistically significant difference.
The safety results showed no new signals for a drug that already has regulatory approval but was being used in a novel population. The rate of major hypoglycemia was virtually nonexistent, 0.2%, and identical in both treatment arms. All adverse events occurred at roughly equal rates in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, with a 5% rate of adverse events leading to study discontinuation in both arms, and a serious adverse event rate of 38% in the dapaglifolzin patients and 42% in the placebo patients. The rate of worsening renal function was less than 2% in both arms and not statistically different.
“This is as close to a home run as you see in heart failure treatment,” commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, and a heart failure clinician and researcher.
DAPA-HF “is a landmark trial. It took a diabetes drug and used it in patients without diabetes, a concept that would have been considered outlandish 5 years ago. Scientifically it’s huge,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
The DAPA-HF results were another step in the remarkable journey toward heart failure intervention taken by the SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransport 2) inhibitor class of drugs that includes dapagliflozin as well as canagliflozin (Invokana) and empagliflozin(Jardiance), a path that began 4 years ago with the report of empagliflozin’s unexpected efficacy for reducing cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in a large cardiovascular-safety study, EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28). Subsequent reports showed similar effects benefiting heart failure and survival for canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, and now with DAPA-HF the evidence extended the benefit to heart failure patients regardless of whether they have diabetes. Additional studies now in progress are exploring the same question for empagliflozin and canagliflozin.
The results from DAPA-HF are likely a class effect for all these SGLT2 inhibitors, suggested Dr. McMurray in a video interview, a view shared by several other experts. He cautioned clinicians against using dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but without diabetes until this indication receives regulatory approval, and even then using dapagliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors this way may take some getting used to on the part of cardiologists and other clinicians.
“The results put dapagliflozin in the same league as [standard HFrEF drugs], but using it will require a shift in thinking. Most physicians will initially say “aren’t SGLT2 inhibitors used for treating diabetes?” Dr. Bhatt said.
“I’m sure most cardiologists are not familiar with the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ll have to educate them,” conceded Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. However, other aspects of dapagliflozin and this drug class in general may make the SGLT2 inhibitors particularly attractive and spur their use once labeling changes.
The adverse-event profile seen in DAPA-HF looked very “clean,” said Dr. Mann, especially compared with the other medical classes recommended in guidelines for patients with HFrEF: the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists such as spironolactone, and the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto). As used in DAPA-HF dapagliflozin also had the advantages of not needing dose titration or laboratory follow-up, as do several of these other drug classes.
“I think dapagliflozin will have a huge uptake [for treating HFrEF], because it will be easy for primary care physicians to prescribe. It will be easier to use than traditional heart failure medications.” Once approved for heart failure use, Dr. Mann predicted a standard dosing regimen for HFrEF patients of an ACE inhibitor, ARB or ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor. He suggested that this large and cumbersome collection of medications could conceivably be simplified into a polypill.
He also saw a suggestion in the DAPA-HF results that combining dapagliflozin with the ARB valsartan might have similar efficacy to dapaglifozin plus sacubitril-valsartan, which might also help simplify heart failure treatment. In the trial, 11% of patients received sacubritril-valsartan, and the primary-endpoint reduction compared with placebo in this subgroup was 26%, compared with 25% for patients treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. Currently, labeling for sacubitril-valsartan calls for starting a patients on an ACE inhibitor or ARB, titrating them to a stable and effective dosage, and then stopping this regimen to switch to the ARNI. If dapagliflozin is also added, then a simpler approach would be to just start a patient on valsartan, optimize the dosage, and then start dapagliflozin and achieve the same benefit as from sacubitril-valsartan plus dapagliflozin. While an attractive scenario, it needs validation, Dr. Mann said in an interview.
One additional, notable finding from DAPA-HF was that the primary endpoint benefit appeared much stronger in patients with New York Heart Association class II heart failure at entry, two-thirds of the study population, compared with patients with class III or IV HFrEF. Compared with placebo the primary endpoint fell by 37% among the class II patients, a statistically significant difference, but by just 10% in the class III and IV patients, a reduction that was not significant compared with placebo. This too needs more study, commented Dr. Mann, as does the ways by which dapagliflozin and the other SGLT2 inhibitors benefit heart failure patients. Currently the ways by which dapagliflozin produced these results remain unknown.
DAPA-HF randomized a total of 4,744 patients at 410 sites in 20 countries. About 10% of enrolled patients were in the United States.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). AstraZeneca paid Glasgow University to cover Dr. McMurray’s salary during the time he spent working as principal investigator of DAPA-HF. Dr. McMurray had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, Novartis, and Tenaya Therapeutics. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from AstraZeneca, and he has served as a consultant to or received research funding from several other companies.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin produced multiple, statistically significant benefits in heart failure patients on top of guideline-directed therapy.
Major finding: The study’s primary endpoint fell by a statistically significant 27% with dapagliflozin compared with placebo in patients without diabetes.
Study details: DAPA-HF, a multinational study with 4,744 patients at 410 sites.
Disclosures: DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). AstraZeneca paid Glasgow University to cover Dr. McMurray’s salary during the time he spent working as principal investigator of DAPA-HF.
Dr. Roger McIntyre discusses the role of inflammation in mental illness
Quarterly intravenous eptinezumab prevents migraine
PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.
In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.
The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.
In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.
Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.
Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.
The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.
PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.
SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12
PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.
In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.
The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.
In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.
Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.
Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.
The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.
PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.
SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12
PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.
In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.
The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.
In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.
Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.
Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.
The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.
PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.
SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12
REPORTING FROM AHS 2019
Nearly 20% of migraineurs use opioids for migraine
PHILADELPHIA – People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.
To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.
The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.
“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.
Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.
There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.
Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.
Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.
PHILADELPHIA – People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.
To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.
The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.
“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.
Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.
There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.
Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.
Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.
PHILADELPHIA – People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.
To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.
The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.
“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.
Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.
There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.
Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.
Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AHS 2019
Overreliance on DAS scores undermines rheumatoid arthritis management
MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.
The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.
In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.
Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).
In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.
The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”
A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.
The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.
It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).
Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.
MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.
The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.
In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.
Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).
In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.
The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”
A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.
The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.
It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).
Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.
MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.
The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.
In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.
Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).
In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.
The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”
A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.
The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.
It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).
Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
