Acute Coronary Syndromes

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

The relationship between estrogen levels and heart health makes it particularly important for clinicians to be aware of those patients who might be at risk for cardiovascular disease despite not having other traditional risk factors, according to a presentation Oct. 12 at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

”Endogenous estrogens are protective for cardiovascular disease in premenopausal women,” Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., told attendees. Yet, “a substantial population of young women are dying prematurely from cardiovascular disease,” with rates of cardiovascular death increasing in women aged 35-44 even as rates have decreased in postmenopausal women and in men. One potential reason may be premature estrogen loss.

Dr. Shufelt reminded attendees of four major causes of premature estrogen loss: Natural premature menopause, surgical menopause, chemotherapy-induced menopause, and premature ovarian insufficiency. But she would go on to discuss a less widely recognized condition, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, that also may be contributing to increased cardiovascular risk.

First, Dr. Shufelt reviewed the evidence supporting the relationship between estrogen and cardiovascular health, starting with the Framingham study’s findings that cardiovascular disease is approximately two to four times more common in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women, depending on the age range.

“Menopause at an early age, particularly under the age of 40, matters,” Dr. Shufelt said. “So we should be discussing this with our patients.”

Surgical menopause makes a difference to cardiovascular health as well, she said. In women under age 35, for example, the risk of a nonfatal heart attack in those with a bilateral oophorectomy was 7.7 times greater than in women who retained both ovaries and their uterus, and 1.5 times greater in women who had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy.

In a 2019 study, surgical premature menopause was associated with an 87% increased risk of heart disease even after researchers accounted for age, cardiovascular risk factors, and some forms of hormone therapy. The increased risk from natural premature menopause, on the other hand, was lower – a 36% increased risk of heart disease – compared with those producing endogenous hormones. Although randomized controlled trials are unavailable and unlikely to be done, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Danish Nurses Cohort Study, both observational studies, found that heart disease risk was diminished in those taking hormone therapy after surgical premature menopause.

Recommendations for premature or early menopause, from a wide range of different medical societies including NAMS, are that women without contraindications be given estrogen-based hormone therapy until the average age of natural menopause. Though not included in the same guidance, research has also shown that estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation, Dr. Shufelt said. Hormone therapy for premature or early menopause should adequately replace the levels women have lost and that means younger menopausal women often need higher doses than what older women receive, such as 2 mg/day of oral estradiol rather than the standard doses of 0.5 or 1 mg/day.
 

Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and cardiovascular risk

Dr. Shufelt then discussed functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (hypogonadotropic hypogonadism), a common type of secondary amenorrhea that affects at least 1.4 million U.S. women. Diagnosis includes lack of a period for at least 3 months in someone who previously menstruated plus lab values below 50 pg/mL for estradiol, below 10 mIU/L for follicle stimulating hormone, and below 10 mIU/L for luteinizing hormone. Causes of this reversible form of infertility can include stress, overexercising, undereating, or some combination of these, plus an underlying genetic predisposition.

“After ruling out polycystic ovary syndrome, prolactinoma, and thyroid dysfunction, clinicians need to consider the diagnosis of hypothalamic amenorrhea,” Dr. Shufelt said. This condition goes beyond low estrogen levels: Women have elevated cortisol, low thyroid levels, low leptin levels, and increased ghrelin.

”This is not going away,” Dr. Shufelt said, sharing data on stress levels among U.S. adults, particularly Gen Z and millennial adults, noting that the ongoing “national mental health crisis” may be contributing to functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

A 2020 substudy from the Nurses’ Health Study II found an increased risk of premature death in those who didn’t have a period or always had irregular periods starting as early as 14-17 years old. The increased risk of premature death rose with age in those with irregular or absent cycles – a 37% higher risk in 18- to 22-year-olds and a 39% increased risk in 29- to 46-year-olds.

But clinicians aren’t adequately identifying the “phenotype of the hypothalamic women,” Dr. Shufelt said, despite research showing overlap between hypothalamic amenorrhea and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Hypothalamic amenorrhea is so understudied that the last original research on the topic was in 2008, Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. ”No research except mine has been done to evaluate heart health in these young women,” she said.

Dr. Shufelt described a study she led involving 30 women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, 29 women with normal menstrual cycles, and 30 women who were recently menopausal and not on hormone therapy. The women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had average stress levels but their depression scores were higher than those of the other two groups.

The results showed that women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower estradiol and leptin levels and higher testosterone levels compared with the control group, and they had higher cortisol levels than those of both groups. Despite having similar body mass indexes as the control and menopausal groups, women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower blood pressure than that of the other two groups, yet they had higher cholesterol levels than those of the control group. EndoPAT^© (Itamar Medical) testing showed that they had poor vascular function.

“In fact, one-third of the women [with hypothalamic amenorrhea] entered the trial with a diagnosis of what would be considered endothelial dysfunction,” Dr. Shufelt said. “Our results demonstrated significantly higher circulating levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines in the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea compared to eumenorrheic controls.”

Dr. Shufelt’s team then tested whether giving estradiol to the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea for 12 weeks would improve their vascular health, but they saw no significant differences between the women who received estrogen and those who received placebo.

“Endothelial function is partly mediated by estrogen, and it was expected that giving back estrogen would ‘fix’ the endothelium, but that is not what happened,” Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in interview. “The mechanisms that maintain vascular function in women are not limited to hormones,” said Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s study but attended her lecture. “We need to think beyond the simple model of estrogen-good, no-estrogen-bad.”

Dr. Santoro noted how easy it is to overlook the women who may have cardiovascular risk because of hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“Because many women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea are super athletic and do not have the typical features of people with cardiometabolic disease – such as glucose intolerance, obesity, abnormal cholesterol or triglycerides, or high blood pressure – clinicians tend to think of them as healthy and to think that simply giving back hormones will fix the problems with bone density and vascular function, but that is not enough,” Dr. Santoro said. “The cognitive-behavioral therapy model for treatment of women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea addresses the stress-related factors that drive the disorder, and this needs to be considered the standard of care for treatment.”

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, professor of medicine and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s presentation, also emphasized the importance of recognizing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“This is an underrecognized entity to begin with, and the fact that these women appear to be at increased risk for vascular dysfunction and potentially increased risk for cardiovascular disease down the road makes it even more important for clinicians to identify them and provide interventions early on,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “These women need to be identified and the etiology of the amenorrhea addressed, whether it relates to overexercising, being underweight, or experiencing significant stressors that have led to the loss of menstrual cycles.”

Dr. Shufelt’s research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She had no disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory board for Astellas, Menogenix, Amazon Ember, and Que Oncology, and she consults for Ansh Labs. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

The relationship between estrogen levels and heart health makes it particularly important for clinicians to be aware of those patients who might be at risk for cardiovascular disease despite not having other traditional risk factors, according to a presentation Oct. 12 at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

”Endogenous estrogens are protective for cardiovascular disease in premenopausal women,” Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., told attendees. Yet, “a substantial population of young women are dying prematurely from cardiovascular disease,” with rates of cardiovascular death increasing in women aged 35-44 even as rates have decreased in postmenopausal women and in men. One potential reason may be premature estrogen loss.

Dr. Shufelt reminded attendees of four major causes of premature estrogen loss: Natural premature menopause, surgical menopause, chemotherapy-induced menopause, and premature ovarian insufficiency. But she would go on to discuss a less widely recognized condition, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, that also may be contributing to increased cardiovascular risk.

First, Dr. Shufelt reviewed the evidence supporting the relationship between estrogen and cardiovascular health, starting with the Framingham study’s findings that cardiovascular disease is approximately two to four times more common in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women, depending on the age range.

“Menopause at an early age, particularly under the age of 40, matters,” Dr. Shufelt said. “So we should be discussing this with our patients.”

Surgical menopause makes a difference to cardiovascular health as well, she said. In women under age 35, for example, the risk of a nonfatal heart attack in those with a bilateral oophorectomy was 7.7 times greater than in women who retained both ovaries and their uterus, and 1.5 times greater in women who had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy.

In a 2019 study, surgical premature menopause was associated with an 87% increased risk of heart disease even after researchers accounted for age, cardiovascular risk factors, and some forms of hormone therapy. The increased risk from natural premature menopause, on the other hand, was lower – a 36% increased risk of heart disease – compared with those producing endogenous hormones. Although randomized controlled trials are unavailable and unlikely to be done, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Danish Nurses Cohort Study, both observational studies, found that heart disease risk was diminished in those taking hormone therapy after surgical premature menopause.

Recommendations for premature or early menopause, from a wide range of different medical societies including NAMS, are that women without contraindications be given estrogen-based hormone therapy until the average age of natural menopause. Though not included in the same guidance, research has also shown that estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation, Dr. Shufelt said. Hormone therapy for premature or early menopause should adequately replace the levels women have lost and that means younger menopausal women often need higher doses than what older women receive, such as 2 mg/day of oral estradiol rather than the standard doses of 0.5 or 1 mg/day.
 

Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and cardiovascular risk

Dr. Shufelt then discussed functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (hypogonadotropic hypogonadism), a common type of secondary amenorrhea that affects at least 1.4 million U.S. women. Diagnosis includes lack of a period for at least 3 months in someone who previously menstruated plus lab values below 50 pg/mL for estradiol, below 10 mIU/L for follicle stimulating hormone, and below 10 mIU/L for luteinizing hormone. Causes of this reversible form of infertility can include stress, overexercising, undereating, or some combination of these, plus an underlying genetic predisposition.

“After ruling out polycystic ovary syndrome, prolactinoma, and thyroid dysfunction, clinicians need to consider the diagnosis of hypothalamic amenorrhea,” Dr. Shufelt said. This condition goes beyond low estrogen levels: Women have elevated cortisol, low thyroid levels, low leptin levels, and increased ghrelin.

”This is not going away,” Dr. Shufelt said, sharing data on stress levels among U.S. adults, particularly Gen Z and millennial adults, noting that the ongoing “national mental health crisis” may be contributing to functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

A 2020 substudy from the Nurses’ Health Study II found an increased risk of premature death in those who didn’t have a period or always had irregular periods starting as early as 14-17 years old. The increased risk of premature death rose with age in those with irregular or absent cycles – a 37% higher risk in 18- to 22-year-olds and a 39% increased risk in 29- to 46-year-olds.

But clinicians aren’t adequately identifying the “phenotype of the hypothalamic women,” Dr. Shufelt said, despite research showing overlap between hypothalamic amenorrhea and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Hypothalamic amenorrhea is so understudied that the last original research on the topic was in 2008, Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. ”No research except mine has been done to evaluate heart health in these young women,” she said.

Dr. Shufelt described a study she led involving 30 women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, 29 women with normal menstrual cycles, and 30 women who were recently menopausal and not on hormone therapy. The women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had average stress levels but their depression scores were higher than those of the other two groups.

The results showed that women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower estradiol and leptin levels and higher testosterone levels compared with the control group, and they had higher cortisol levels than those of both groups. Despite having similar body mass indexes as the control and menopausal groups, women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower blood pressure than that of the other two groups, yet they had higher cholesterol levels than those of the control group. EndoPAT^© (Itamar Medical) testing showed that they had poor vascular function.

“In fact, one-third of the women [with hypothalamic amenorrhea] entered the trial with a diagnosis of what would be considered endothelial dysfunction,” Dr. Shufelt said. “Our results demonstrated significantly higher circulating levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines in the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea compared to eumenorrheic controls.”

Dr. Shufelt’s team then tested whether giving estradiol to the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea for 12 weeks would improve their vascular health, but they saw no significant differences between the women who received estrogen and those who received placebo.

“Endothelial function is partly mediated by estrogen, and it was expected that giving back estrogen would ‘fix’ the endothelium, but that is not what happened,” Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in interview. “The mechanisms that maintain vascular function in women are not limited to hormones,” said Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s study but attended her lecture. “We need to think beyond the simple model of estrogen-good, no-estrogen-bad.”

Dr. Santoro noted how easy it is to overlook the women who may have cardiovascular risk because of hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“Because many women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea are super athletic and do not have the typical features of people with cardiometabolic disease – such as glucose intolerance, obesity, abnormal cholesterol or triglycerides, or high blood pressure – clinicians tend to think of them as healthy and to think that simply giving back hormones will fix the problems with bone density and vascular function, but that is not enough,” Dr. Santoro said. “The cognitive-behavioral therapy model for treatment of women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea addresses the stress-related factors that drive the disorder, and this needs to be considered the standard of care for treatment.”

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, professor of medicine and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s presentation, also emphasized the importance of recognizing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“This is an underrecognized entity to begin with, and the fact that these women appear to be at increased risk for vascular dysfunction and potentially increased risk for cardiovascular disease down the road makes it even more important for clinicians to identify them and provide interventions early on,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “These women need to be identified and the etiology of the amenorrhea addressed, whether it relates to overexercising, being underweight, or experiencing significant stressors that have led to the loss of menstrual cycles.”

Dr. Shufelt’s research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She had no disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory board for Astellas, Menogenix, Amazon Ember, and Que Oncology, and she consults for Ansh Labs. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

The relationship between estrogen levels and heart health makes it particularly important for clinicians to be aware of those patients who might be at risk for cardiovascular disease despite not having other traditional risk factors, according to a presentation Oct. 12 at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

”Endogenous estrogens are protective for cardiovascular disease in premenopausal women,” Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., told attendees. Yet, “a substantial population of young women are dying prematurely from cardiovascular disease,” with rates of cardiovascular death increasing in women aged 35-44 even as rates have decreased in postmenopausal women and in men. One potential reason may be premature estrogen loss.

Dr. Shufelt reminded attendees of four major causes of premature estrogen loss: Natural premature menopause, surgical menopause, chemotherapy-induced menopause, and premature ovarian insufficiency. But she would go on to discuss a less widely recognized condition, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, that also may be contributing to increased cardiovascular risk.

First, Dr. Shufelt reviewed the evidence supporting the relationship between estrogen and cardiovascular health, starting with the Framingham study’s findings that cardiovascular disease is approximately two to four times more common in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women, depending on the age range.

“Menopause at an early age, particularly under the age of 40, matters,” Dr. Shufelt said. “So we should be discussing this with our patients.”

Surgical menopause makes a difference to cardiovascular health as well, she said. In women under age 35, for example, the risk of a nonfatal heart attack in those with a bilateral oophorectomy was 7.7 times greater than in women who retained both ovaries and their uterus, and 1.5 times greater in women who had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy.

In a 2019 study, surgical premature menopause was associated with an 87% increased risk of heart disease even after researchers accounted for age, cardiovascular risk factors, and some forms of hormone therapy. The increased risk from natural premature menopause, on the other hand, was lower – a 36% increased risk of heart disease – compared with those producing endogenous hormones. Although randomized controlled trials are unavailable and unlikely to be done, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Danish Nurses Cohort Study, both observational studies, found that heart disease risk was diminished in those taking hormone therapy after surgical premature menopause.

Recommendations for premature or early menopause, from a wide range of different medical societies including NAMS, are that women without contraindications be given estrogen-based hormone therapy until the average age of natural menopause. Though not included in the same guidance, research has also shown that estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation, Dr. Shufelt said. Hormone therapy for premature or early menopause should adequately replace the levels women have lost and that means younger menopausal women often need higher doses than what older women receive, such as 2 mg/day of oral estradiol rather than the standard doses of 0.5 or 1 mg/day.
 

Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and cardiovascular risk

Dr. Shufelt then discussed functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (hypogonadotropic hypogonadism), a common type of secondary amenorrhea that affects at least 1.4 million U.S. women. Diagnosis includes lack of a period for at least 3 months in someone who previously menstruated plus lab values below 50 pg/mL for estradiol, below 10 mIU/L for follicle stimulating hormone, and below 10 mIU/L for luteinizing hormone. Causes of this reversible form of infertility can include stress, overexercising, undereating, or some combination of these, plus an underlying genetic predisposition.

“After ruling out polycystic ovary syndrome, prolactinoma, and thyroid dysfunction, clinicians need to consider the diagnosis of hypothalamic amenorrhea,” Dr. Shufelt said. This condition goes beyond low estrogen levels: Women have elevated cortisol, low thyroid levels, low leptin levels, and increased ghrelin.

”This is not going away,” Dr. Shufelt said, sharing data on stress levels among U.S. adults, particularly Gen Z and millennial adults, noting that the ongoing “national mental health crisis” may be contributing to functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

A 2020 substudy from the Nurses’ Health Study II found an increased risk of premature death in those who didn’t have a period or always had irregular periods starting as early as 14-17 years old. The increased risk of premature death rose with age in those with irregular or absent cycles – a 37% higher risk in 18- to 22-year-olds and a 39% increased risk in 29- to 46-year-olds.

But clinicians aren’t adequately identifying the “phenotype of the hypothalamic women,” Dr. Shufelt said, despite research showing overlap between hypothalamic amenorrhea and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Hypothalamic amenorrhea is so understudied that the last original research on the topic was in 2008, Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. ”No research except mine has been done to evaluate heart health in these young women,” she said.

Dr. Shufelt described a study she led involving 30 women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, 29 women with normal menstrual cycles, and 30 women who were recently menopausal and not on hormone therapy. The women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had average stress levels but their depression scores were higher than those of the other two groups.

The results showed that women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower estradiol and leptin levels and higher testosterone levels compared with the control group, and they had higher cortisol levels than those of both groups. Despite having similar body mass indexes as the control and menopausal groups, women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower blood pressure than that of the other two groups, yet they had higher cholesterol levels than those of the control group. EndoPAT^© (Itamar Medical) testing showed that they had poor vascular function.

“In fact, one-third of the women [with hypothalamic amenorrhea] entered the trial with a diagnosis of what would be considered endothelial dysfunction,” Dr. Shufelt said. “Our results demonstrated significantly higher circulating levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines in the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea compared to eumenorrheic controls.”

Dr. Shufelt’s team then tested whether giving estradiol to the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea for 12 weeks would improve their vascular health, but they saw no significant differences between the women who received estrogen and those who received placebo.

“Endothelial function is partly mediated by estrogen, and it was expected that giving back estrogen would ‘fix’ the endothelium, but that is not what happened,” Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in interview. “The mechanisms that maintain vascular function in women are not limited to hormones,” said Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s study but attended her lecture. “We need to think beyond the simple model of estrogen-good, no-estrogen-bad.”

Dr. Santoro noted how easy it is to overlook the women who may have cardiovascular risk because of hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“Because many women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea are super athletic and do not have the typical features of people with cardiometabolic disease – such as glucose intolerance, obesity, abnormal cholesterol or triglycerides, or high blood pressure – clinicians tend to think of them as healthy and to think that simply giving back hormones will fix the problems with bone density and vascular function, but that is not enough,” Dr. Santoro said. “The cognitive-behavioral therapy model for treatment of women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea addresses the stress-related factors that drive the disorder, and this needs to be considered the standard of care for treatment.”

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, professor of medicine and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s presentation, also emphasized the importance of recognizing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“This is an underrecognized entity to begin with, and the fact that these women appear to be at increased risk for vascular dysfunction and potentially increased risk for cardiovascular disease down the road makes it even more important for clinicians to identify them and provide interventions early on,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “These women need to be identified and the etiology of the amenorrhea addressed, whether it relates to overexercising, being underweight, or experiencing significant stressors that have led to the loss of menstrual cycles.”

Dr. Shufelt’s research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She had no disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory board for Astellas, Menogenix, Amazon Ember, and Que Oncology, and she consults for Ansh Labs. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

A recent medical meeting I attended included multiple sessions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), a mere preview, I suspect, of what is to come for both patients and physicians.

I vow not to be a contrarian, but I have concerns. If we’d known how cell phones would permeate nearly every waking moment of our lives, would we have built in more protections from the onset?

Although anyone can see the enormous potential of AI in medicine, harnessing the wonders of it without guarding against the dangers could be paramount to texting and driving. 

A palpable disruption in the common work-a-day human interaction is a given. CEOs who mind the bottom line will seek every opportunity to cut personnel whenever machine learning can deliver. As our dependence on algorithms increases, our need to understand electrocardiogram interpretation and echocardiographic calculations will wane. Subtle case information will go undetected. Nuanced subconscious alerts regarding the patient condition will go unnoticed.

These realities are never reflected in the pronouncements of companies who promote and develop AI.
 

The 2-minute echo

In September 2020, Carolyn Lam, MBBS, PhD, and James Hare, MBA, founders of the AI tech company US2.AI, told Healthcare Transformers that AI advances in echocardiology will turn “a manual process of 30 minutes, 250 clicks, with up to 21% variability among fully trained sonographers analyzing the same exam, into an AI-automated process taking 2 minutes, 1 click, with 0% variability.”

Let’s contrast this 2-minute human-machine interaction with the standard 20- to 30-minute human-to-human echocardiography procedure.

Take Mrs. Smith, for instance. She is referred for echocardiography for shortness of breath. She’s shown to a room and instructed to lie down on a table, where she undergoes a brief AI-directed acquisition of images and then a cheery dismissal from the imaging lab. Medical corporate chief financial officers will salivate at the efficiency, the decrease in cost for personnel, and the sharp increase in put-through for the echo lab schedule.

But what if Mrs. Smith gets a standard 30-minute sonographer-directed exam and the astute echocardiographer notes a left ventricular ejection fraction of 38%. A conversation with the patient reveals that she lost her son a few weeks ago. Upon completion of the study, the patient stands up and then adds, “I hope I can sleep in my bed tonight.” Thinking there may be more to the patient’s insomnia than grief-driven anxiety, the sonographer asks her to explain. “I had to sleep in a chair last night because I couldn’t breathe,” Mrs. Smith replies.

The sonographer reasons correctly that Mrs. Smith is likely a few weeks past an acute coronary syndrome for which she didn’t seek attention and is now in heart failure. The consulting cardiologist is alerted. Mrs. Smith is worked into the office schedule a week earlier than planned, and a costly in-patient stay for acute heart failure or worse is avoided.

Here’s a true-life example (some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity): Mr. Rodriquez was referred for echocardiography because of dizziness. The sonographer notes significant mitral regurgitation and a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from moderately impaired to severely reduced. When the sonographer inquires about a fresh bruise over Mr. Rodriguez’s left eye, he replies that he “must have fallen, but can’t remember.” The sonographer also notes runs of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on the echo telemetry, and after a phone call from the echo lab to the ordering physician, Mr. Rodriquez is admitted. Instead of chancing a sudden death at home while awaiting follow-up, he undergoes catheterization and gets an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

These scenarios illustrate that a 2-minute visit for AI-directed acquisition of echocardiogram images will never garner the protections of a conversation with a human. Any attempts at downplaying the importance of these human interactions are misguided.

Sometimes we embrace the latest advances in medicine while failing to tend to the most rudimentary necessities of data analysis and reporting. Catherine M. Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, is a fan of the basics.

At the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, she commented on the AI-ENHANCED trial, which used an AI decision support algorithm to identify patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis, which is associated with poor survival if left untreated. She correctly highlighted that while we are discussing the merits of AI-driven assessment of aortic stenosis, we are doing so in an era when many echo interpreters exclude critical information. The vital findings of aortic valve area, Vmax, and ejection fraction are often nowhere to be seen on reports. We should attend to our basic flaws in interpretation and reporting before we shift our focus to AI.
 

Flawed algorithms

Incorrect AI algorithms that are broadly adopted could negatively affect the health of millions.

Perhaps the most unsettling claim is made by causaLens: “Causal AI is the only technology that can reason and make choices like humans do,” the website states. A tantalizing tag line that is categorically untrue.

Our mysterious and complex neurophysiological function of reasoning still eludes understanding, but one thing is certain: medical reasoning originates with listening, seeing, and touching.

As AI infiltrates mainstream medicine, opportunities for hearing, observing, and palpating will be greatly reduced.

Folkert Asselbergs from University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who has cautioned against overhyping AI, was the discussant for an ESC study on the use of causal AI to improve  cardiovascular risk estimation.

He flashed a slide of a 2019 Science article on racial bias in an algorithm that U.S. health care systems use.  Remedying that bias “would increase the percentage of Black people receiving additional help from 17.7% to 46.5%,” according to the authors.  

Successful integration of AI-driven technology will come only if we build human interaction into every patient encounter.

I hope I don’t live to see the rise of the physician cyborg.

Artificial intelligence could be the greatest boon since the invention of the stethoscope, but it will be our downfall if we stop administering a healthy dose of humanity to every patient encounter.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tenn., who has retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A recent medical meeting I attended included multiple sessions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), a mere preview, I suspect, of what is to come for both patients and physicians.

I vow not to be a contrarian, but I have concerns. If we’d known how cell phones would permeate nearly every waking moment of our lives, would we have built in more protections from the onset?

Although anyone can see the enormous potential of AI in medicine, harnessing the wonders of it without guarding against the dangers could be paramount to texting and driving. 

A palpable disruption in the common work-a-day human interaction is a given. CEOs who mind the bottom line will seek every opportunity to cut personnel whenever machine learning can deliver. As our dependence on algorithms increases, our need to understand electrocardiogram interpretation and echocardiographic calculations will wane. Subtle case information will go undetected. Nuanced subconscious alerts regarding the patient condition will go unnoticed.

These realities are never reflected in the pronouncements of companies who promote and develop AI.
 

The 2-minute echo

In September 2020, Carolyn Lam, MBBS, PhD, and James Hare, MBA, founders of the AI tech company US2.AI, told Healthcare Transformers that AI advances in echocardiology will turn “a manual process of 30 minutes, 250 clicks, with up to 21% variability among fully trained sonographers analyzing the same exam, into an AI-automated process taking 2 minutes, 1 click, with 0% variability.”

Let’s contrast this 2-minute human-machine interaction with the standard 20- to 30-minute human-to-human echocardiography procedure.

Take Mrs. Smith, for instance. She is referred for echocardiography for shortness of breath. She’s shown to a room and instructed to lie down on a table, where she undergoes a brief AI-directed acquisition of images and then a cheery dismissal from the imaging lab. Medical corporate chief financial officers will salivate at the efficiency, the decrease in cost for personnel, and the sharp increase in put-through for the echo lab schedule.

But what if Mrs. Smith gets a standard 30-minute sonographer-directed exam and the astute echocardiographer notes a left ventricular ejection fraction of 38%. A conversation with the patient reveals that she lost her son a few weeks ago. Upon completion of the study, the patient stands up and then adds, “I hope I can sleep in my bed tonight.” Thinking there may be more to the patient’s insomnia than grief-driven anxiety, the sonographer asks her to explain. “I had to sleep in a chair last night because I couldn’t breathe,” Mrs. Smith replies.

The sonographer reasons correctly that Mrs. Smith is likely a few weeks past an acute coronary syndrome for which she didn’t seek attention and is now in heart failure. The consulting cardiologist is alerted. Mrs. Smith is worked into the office schedule a week earlier than planned, and a costly in-patient stay for acute heart failure or worse is avoided.

Here’s a true-life example (some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity): Mr. Rodriquez was referred for echocardiography because of dizziness. The sonographer notes significant mitral regurgitation and a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from moderately impaired to severely reduced. When the sonographer inquires about a fresh bruise over Mr. Rodriguez’s left eye, he replies that he “must have fallen, but can’t remember.” The sonographer also notes runs of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on the echo telemetry, and after a phone call from the echo lab to the ordering physician, Mr. Rodriquez is admitted. Instead of chancing a sudden death at home while awaiting follow-up, he undergoes catheterization and gets an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

These scenarios illustrate that a 2-minute visit for AI-directed acquisition of echocardiogram images will never garner the protections of a conversation with a human. Any attempts at downplaying the importance of these human interactions are misguided.

Sometimes we embrace the latest advances in medicine while failing to tend to the most rudimentary necessities of data analysis and reporting. Catherine M. Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, is a fan of the basics.

At the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, she commented on the AI-ENHANCED trial, which used an AI decision support algorithm to identify patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis, which is associated with poor survival if left untreated. She correctly highlighted that while we are discussing the merits of AI-driven assessment of aortic stenosis, we are doing so in an era when many echo interpreters exclude critical information. The vital findings of aortic valve area, Vmax, and ejection fraction are often nowhere to be seen on reports. We should attend to our basic flaws in interpretation and reporting before we shift our focus to AI.
 

Flawed algorithms

Incorrect AI algorithms that are broadly adopted could negatively affect the health of millions.

Perhaps the most unsettling claim is made by causaLens: “Causal AI is the only technology that can reason and make choices like humans do,” the website states. A tantalizing tag line that is categorically untrue.

Our mysterious and complex neurophysiological function of reasoning still eludes understanding, but one thing is certain: medical reasoning originates with listening, seeing, and touching.

As AI infiltrates mainstream medicine, opportunities for hearing, observing, and palpating will be greatly reduced.

Folkert Asselbergs from University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who has cautioned against overhyping AI, was the discussant for an ESC study on the use of causal AI to improve  cardiovascular risk estimation.

He flashed a slide of a 2019 Science article on racial bias in an algorithm that U.S. health care systems use.  Remedying that bias “would increase the percentage of Black people receiving additional help from 17.7% to 46.5%,” according to the authors.  

Successful integration of AI-driven technology will come only if we build human interaction into every patient encounter.

I hope I don’t live to see the rise of the physician cyborg.

Artificial intelligence could be the greatest boon since the invention of the stethoscope, but it will be our downfall if we stop administering a healthy dose of humanity to every patient encounter.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tenn., who has retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A recent medical meeting I attended included multiple sessions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), a mere preview, I suspect, of what is to come for both patients and physicians.

I vow not to be a contrarian, but I have concerns. If we’d known how cell phones would permeate nearly every waking moment of our lives, would we have built in more protections from the onset?

Although anyone can see the enormous potential of AI in medicine, harnessing the wonders of it without guarding against the dangers could be paramount to texting and driving. 

A palpable disruption in the common work-a-day human interaction is a given. CEOs who mind the bottom line will seek every opportunity to cut personnel whenever machine learning can deliver. As our dependence on algorithms increases, our need to understand electrocardiogram interpretation and echocardiographic calculations will wane. Subtle case information will go undetected. Nuanced subconscious alerts regarding the patient condition will go unnoticed.

These realities are never reflected in the pronouncements of companies who promote and develop AI.
 

The 2-minute echo

In September 2020, Carolyn Lam, MBBS, PhD, and James Hare, MBA, founders of the AI tech company US2.AI, told Healthcare Transformers that AI advances in echocardiology will turn “a manual process of 30 minutes, 250 clicks, with up to 21% variability among fully trained sonographers analyzing the same exam, into an AI-automated process taking 2 minutes, 1 click, with 0% variability.”

Let’s contrast this 2-minute human-machine interaction with the standard 20- to 30-minute human-to-human echocardiography procedure.

Take Mrs. Smith, for instance. She is referred for echocardiography for shortness of breath. She’s shown to a room and instructed to lie down on a table, where she undergoes a brief AI-directed acquisition of images and then a cheery dismissal from the imaging lab. Medical corporate chief financial officers will salivate at the efficiency, the decrease in cost for personnel, and the sharp increase in put-through for the echo lab schedule.

But what if Mrs. Smith gets a standard 30-minute sonographer-directed exam and the astute echocardiographer notes a left ventricular ejection fraction of 38%. A conversation with the patient reveals that she lost her son a few weeks ago. Upon completion of the study, the patient stands up and then adds, “I hope I can sleep in my bed tonight.” Thinking there may be more to the patient’s insomnia than grief-driven anxiety, the sonographer asks her to explain. “I had to sleep in a chair last night because I couldn’t breathe,” Mrs. Smith replies.

The sonographer reasons correctly that Mrs. Smith is likely a few weeks past an acute coronary syndrome for which she didn’t seek attention and is now in heart failure. The consulting cardiologist is alerted. Mrs. Smith is worked into the office schedule a week earlier than planned, and a costly in-patient stay for acute heart failure or worse is avoided.

Here’s a true-life example (some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity): Mr. Rodriquez was referred for echocardiography because of dizziness. The sonographer notes significant mitral regurgitation and a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from moderately impaired to severely reduced. When the sonographer inquires about a fresh bruise over Mr. Rodriguez’s left eye, he replies that he “must have fallen, but can’t remember.” The sonographer also notes runs of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on the echo telemetry, and after a phone call from the echo lab to the ordering physician, Mr. Rodriquez is admitted. Instead of chancing a sudden death at home while awaiting follow-up, he undergoes catheterization and gets an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

These scenarios illustrate that a 2-minute visit for AI-directed acquisition of echocardiogram images will never garner the protections of a conversation with a human. Any attempts at downplaying the importance of these human interactions are misguided.

Sometimes we embrace the latest advances in medicine while failing to tend to the most rudimentary necessities of data analysis and reporting. Catherine M. Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, is a fan of the basics.

At the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, she commented on the AI-ENHANCED trial, which used an AI decision support algorithm to identify patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis, which is associated with poor survival if left untreated. She correctly highlighted that while we are discussing the merits of AI-driven assessment of aortic stenosis, we are doing so in an era when many echo interpreters exclude critical information. The vital findings of aortic valve area, Vmax, and ejection fraction are often nowhere to be seen on reports. We should attend to our basic flaws in interpretation and reporting before we shift our focus to AI.
 

Flawed algorithms

Incorrect AI algorithms that are broadly adopted could negatively affect the health of millions.

Perhaps the most unsettling claim is made by causaLens: “Causal AI is the only technology that can reason and make choices like humans do,” the website states. A tantalizing tag line that is categorically untrue.

Our mysterious and complex neurophysiological function of reasoning still eludes understanding, but one thing is certain: medical reasoning originates with listening, seeing, and touching.

As AI infiltrates mainstream medicine, opportunities for hearing, observing, and palpating will be greatly reduced.

Folkert Asselbergs from University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who has cautioned against overhyping AI, was the discussant for an ESC study on the use of causal AI to improve  cardiovascular risk estimation.

He flashed a slide of a 2019 Science article on racial bias in an algorithm that U.S. health care systems use.  Remedying that bias “would increase the percentage of Black people receiving additional help from 17.7% to 46.5%,” according to the authors.  

Successful integration of AI-driven technology will come only if we build human interaction into every patient encounter.

I hope I don’t live to see the rise of the physician cyborg.

Artificial intelligence could be the greatest boon since the invention of the stethoscope, but it will be our downfall if we stop administering a healthy dose of humanity to every patient encounter.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tenn., who has retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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